diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/67097-h/67097-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67097-h/67097-h.htm | 22109 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 22109 deletions
diff --git a/old/67097-h/67097-h.htm b/old/67097-h/67097-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index dc6824a..0000000 --- a/old/67097-h/67097-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,22109 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=UTF-8" /> - <title>Early Greek Philosophy, by John Burnet</title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - body { margin-left: 8%; margin-right: 10%; } - h1 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.4em; } - h2 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.2em; } - h3 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.2em; } - h4 { text-align: center; font-weight: normal; font-size: 1.0em; } - .pageno { right: 1%; font-size: x-small; background-color: inherit; color: silver; - text-indent: 0em; text-align: right; position: absolute; - border: thin solid silver; padding: .1em .2em; font-style: normal; - font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; } - p { text-indent: 0; margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; text-align: justify; } - sup { vertical-align: top; font-size: 0.6em; } - .fss { font-size: 75%; } - .sc { font-variant: small-caps; } - .large { font-size: large; } - .xlarge { font-size: x-large; } - .xxlarge { font-size: xx-large; } - .small { font-size: small; } - .lg-container-b { text-align: center; } - @media handheld { .lg-container-b { clear: both; } } - .linegroup { display: inline-block; text-align: left; } - @media handheld { .linegroup { display: block; margin-left: 1.5em; } } - .linegroup .group { margin: 1em auto; } - .linegroup .line { text-indent: -3em; padding-left: 3em; } - div.linegroup > :first-child { margin-top: 0; } - .linegroup .in18 { padding-left: 12.0em; } - .index li {text-indent: -1em; padding-left: 1em; } - .index ul {list-style-type: none; padding-left: 0; } - ul.index {list-style-type: none; padding-left: 0; } - .ul_1 li {padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; } - .ul_2 li {padding-left: 1em; text-indent: -1em; } - ul.ul_1 {padding-left: 0; margin-left: 8.33%; margin-top: .5em; - margin-bottom: .5em; list-style-type: none; } - ul.ul_2 {padding-left: 0; margin-top: .5em; margin-bottom: .5em; - list-style-type: none; } - div.footnote > :first-child { margin-top: 1em; } - div.footnote p { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: 0.0em; margin-bottom: 0.0em; } - div.pbb { page-break-before: always; } - hr.pb { border: none; border-bottom: thin solid; margin-bottom: 1em; } - @media handheld { hr.pb { display: none; } } - .sidenote, .sni { text-indent: 0; text-align: left; width: 9em; min-width: 9em; - max-width: 9em; padding-bottom: .1em; padding-top: .1em; - padding-left: .3em; padding-right: .3em; margin-right: 3.5em; float: left; - clear: left; margin-top: 0em; margin-bottom: 0em; font-size: small; - color: black; background-color: #eeeeee; border: thin dotted gray; - font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; font-variant: normal; - letter-spacing: 0em; text-decoration: none; } - @media handheld { .sidenote, .sni { float: left; clear: none; font-weight: bold; - } } - .sni { text-indent: -.2em; } - .hidev { visibility: hidden; } - .chapter { clear: both; page-break-before: always; } - .figcenter { clear: both; max-width: 100%; margin: 2em auto; text-align: center; } - .figcenter img { max-width: 100%; height: auto; } - .id001 { width:60%; } - @media handheld { .id001 { margin-left:20%; width:60%; } } - .ig001 { width:100%; } - .table0 { margin: auto; margin-top: 2em; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; - width: 100%; } - .table1 { margin: auto; margin-left: 7%; margin-right: 7%; width: 86%; } - .table2 { margin: auto; margin-left: 0%; margin-right: 0%; width: 100%; - border-collapse: collapse; } - .table3 { margin: auto; margin-left: 27%; margin-right: 28%; width: 45%; } - .table4 { margin: auto; margin-left: 37%; margin-right: 38%; width: 25%; } - .table5 { margin: auto; width: 90%; } - .brt { border-right: thin solid; } - .nf-center { text-align: center; } - .nf-center-c0 { text-align: left; margin: 0.5em 0; } - .c000 { margin-top: 0.5em; margin-bottom: 0.5em; } - .c001 { margin-top: 1em; } - .c002 { text-indent: 1em; margin-top: 0.0em; margin-bottom: 0.0em; } - .c003 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 4em; } - .c004 { margin-top: 4em; } - .c005 { page-break-before:auto; margin-top: 4em; } - .c006 { margin-top: 2em; text-indent: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.0em; } - .c007 { margin-right: 5.56%; text-align: right; } - .c008 { vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-right: 1em; } - .c009 { vertical-align: top; text-align: right; } - .c010 { text-align: center; } - .c011 { vertical-align: top; text-align: center; } - .c012 { vertical-align: top; text-align: justify; text-indent: -1em; - padding-left: 1em; } - .c013 { margin-top: 2em; } - .c014 { text-decoration: none; } - .c015 { margin-top: 1em; font-size: 95%; } - .c016 { text-indent: 0; margin-top: 2em; margin-bottom: 0.0em; } - .c017 { border: none; border-bottom: thin solid; width: 10%; margin-left: 0; - margin-top: 1em; text-align: left; } - .c018 { page-break-before: always; margin-top: 2em; } - .c019 { border: none; border-bottom: thin solid; margin-top: 0.8em; - margin-bottom: 0.8em; margin-left: 35%; margin-right: 35%; width: 30%; } - .c020 { text-indent: 0; margin-top: 0.0em; margin-bottom: 0.0em; } - .c021 { vertical-align: top; text-align: center; padding-right: 1em; } - .c022 { margin-top: 1em; text-indent: 1em; margin-bottom: 0.0em; } - .c023 { vertical-align: top; text-align: left; padding-left: .5em; - padding-right: .5em; } - .c024 { vertical-align: top; text-align: center; padding-left: .5em; - padding-right: .5em; } - .c025 { vertical-align: top; text-align: right; padding-right: 1em; } - .c026 { page-break-before: auto; margin-top: 1em; } - .c027 { margin-top: .5em; } - .c028 { vertical-align: top; text-align: left; } - a:link { text-decoration: none; } - div.tnotes { padding-left:1em;padding-right:1em;background-color:#E3E4FA; - border:1px solid silver; margin:1em 5% 0 5%; text-align: justify; } - .blackletter { font-family: "Old English Text MT", Gothic, serif; } - .epubonly {visibility: hidden; display: none; } - .htmlonly {visibility: visible; display: inline; } - .x-ebookmaker .htmlonly { visibility: hidden; display: none; } - .x-ebookmaker .epubonly { visibility: visible; display: inline; } - .column-container { margin: auto; clear: both; } - .colw90 { width: 90%; } - .col60 { display: inline-block; text-align: left; vertical-align: bottom; - width:69%; } - .col40 { display: inline-block; text-align: right; vertical-align: top; width:29%; - } - ins.correction { text-decoration:none; border-bottom: thin dotted gray; } - .c014 { margin-bottom: 1em; } - .sidenote, .sni { margin-left: 1em; padding-left: 1em; margin-right: 0em; - min-width: 8em; max-width: 15em; float: right; clear: right; } - .x-ebookmaker .sni, .sidenote { float: right; clear: none; font-weight: bold; } - .quote { font-size: 90%; margin-left: 1em; margin-top: 1.0em; margin-bottom: 1.0em; - } - .linegroup .group { margin: 0em auto; } - .linenum { float: right; width: 2em; text-align: right;font-variant: normal; - font-weight: normal; text-decoration: none; } - .prose { width: 100%; } - td.bt { border-top: 1px dotted black; } - td.brt1 { border-right: 1px dotted black; border-top: 1px dotted black; } - td.br { border-right: 1px dotted black; } - td.bb { border-bottom: 1px solid black; } - lg-container-b { margin-bottom: 1em; } - </style> - </head> - <body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Early Greek philosophy, by John Burnet</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:1em; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: Early Greek philosophy</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: John Burnet</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: January 3, 2022 [eBook #67097]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: KD Weeks, Steven Rowland, Turgut Dincer and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY ***</div> - -<div class='pbb'> - <hr class='pb c001' /> -</div> -<div class='tnotes'> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div>Transcriber’s Note:</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Footnotes have been renumbered consecutively and are collected at -the end of each chapter. They have been linked to their references. -References to notes in the index and elsewhere have been changed -to reflect the revised numbers.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please -see the transcriber’s <a href='#endnote'>note</a> at the end of this text -for details regarding the handling of any textual issues encountered -during its preparation.</p> - -<div class='htmlonly'> - -<p class='c002'>Any corrections are indicated using an <ins class='correction' title='original'>underline</ins> -highlight. Placing the cursor over the correction will produce the -original text in a small popup.</p> - -<div class='figcenter id001'> -<img src='images/cover.jpg' alt='' class='ig001' /> -</div> - -</div> -<div class='epubonly'> - -<p class='c002'>Any corrections are indicated as hyperlinks, which will navigate the -reader to the corresponding entry in the corrections table in the -note at the end of the text.</p> - -</div> - -</div> - -<div> - <h1 class='c003'><span class='xxlarge'>EARLY <br /> GREEK PHILOSOPHY</span></h1> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>BY</div> - <div class='c001'><span class='large'>JOHN BURNET, M.A., LL.D.</span></div> - <div class='c001'><span class='small'>PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNITED COLLEGE OF ST. SALVATOR</span></div> - <div><span class='small'>AND ST. LEONARD, ST. ANDREWS</span></div> - <div class='c001'>Περὶ μὲν τῶν ὄντων τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐσκόπουν, τὰ δ’ ὄντα ὑπέλαβον</div> - <div>εἶναι τὰ αἰσθητὰ μόνον.—<span class='sc'>Aristotle.</span></div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c004'> - <div><i>SECOND EDITION</i></div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c004'> - <div><span class='large'>LONDON</span></div> - <div class='c001'><span class='large'>ADAM AND CHARLES BLACK</span></div> - <div class='c001'><span class='large'>1908</span></div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c004'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_I'>I</span><i>First Edition published April 1892.</i></div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_v'>v</span> - <h2 class='c005'>PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION</h2> -</div> -<p class='c006'>It has been no easy task to revise this volume in such -a way as to make it more worthy of the favour with -which it has been received. Most of it has had to be -rewritten in the light of certain discoveries made since -the publication of the first edition, above all, that of -the extracts from Menon’s Ἰατρικά, which have furnished, -as I believe, a clue to the history of Pythagoreanism. -I trust that all other obligations are duly acknowledged -in the proper place.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It did not seem worth while to eliminate all traces -of a certain youthful assurance which marked the first -edition. I should not write now as I wrote at the age -of twenty-five; but I still feel that the main contentions -of the book were sound, so I have not tried -to amend the style. The references to Zeller and -“Ritter and Preller” are adapted throughout to the -latest editions. The Aristotelian commentators are -referred to by the pages and verses of the Berlin -Academy edition, and Stobaeus by those of Wachsmuth.</p> - -<div class='c007'>J. B.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='small'><span class='sc'>St. Andrews, 1908.</span></span></p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_vii'>vii</span> - <h2 class='c005'>PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION</h2> -</div> - -<p class='c006'>No apology is needed for the appearance of a work -dealing with Early Greek Philosophy. The want of -one has long been felt; for there are few branches of -philology in which more progress has been made in -the last twenty years, and the results of that progress -have not yet been made accessible to the English -reader. My original intention was simply to report -these results; but I soon found that I was obliged to -dissent from some of them, and it seemed best to say -so distinctly. Very likely I am wrong in most of -these cases, but my mistakes may be of use in calling -attention to unobserved points. In any case, I hope -no one will think I have been wanting in the respect -due to the great authority of Zeller, who was the first -to recall the history of philosophy from the extravagances -into which it had wandered earlier in the century. -I am glad to find that all my divergences from his -account have only led me a little further in the path -that he struck out.</p> - -<p class='c002'>I am very sensible of the imperfect execution of -some parts of this work; but the subject has become -so large, and the number of authorities whose testimony -must be weighed is so great, that it is not easy for any -<span class='pageno' id='Page_viii'>viii</span>one writer to be equally at home in all parts of the -field.</p> - -<p class='c002'>I have consulted the student’s convenience by -giving references to the seventh edition of Ritter and -Preller (ed. Schultess) throughout. The references to -Zeller are to the fourth German edition, from which -the English translation was made. I have been able -to make some use also of the recently published fifth -edition (1892), and all references to it are distinguished -by the symbol Z<sup>5</sup>. I can only wish that it had appeared -in time for me to incorporate its results more thoroughly.</p> - -<p class='c002'>I have to thank many friends for advice and suggestions, -and, above all, Mr. Harold H. Joachim, Fellow of -Merton College, who read most of the work before it -went to press.</p> - -<div class='c007'>J. B.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='small'><span class='sc'>Oxford, 1892.</span></span></p> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_ix'>ix</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CONTENTS</h2> -</div> - -<table class='table0' summary=''> -<colgroup> -<col width='85%' /> -<col width='14%' /> -</colgroup> - <tr> - <td class='c008'> </td> - <td class='c009'>PAGES</td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Introduction</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_1'>1-35</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td class='c010' colspan='2'>CHAPTER I</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>The Milesian School</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_37'>37-84</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td class='c010' colspan='2'>CHAPTER II</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Science and Religion</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_85'>85-142</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td class='c010' colspan='2'>CHAPTER III</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Herakleitos of Ephesos</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_143'>143-191</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td class='c010' colspan='2'>CHAPTER IV</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Parmenides of Elea</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_192'>192-226</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td class='c010' colspan='2'>CHAPTER V</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Empedokles of Akragas</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_227'>227-289</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td class='c010' colspan='2'>CHAPTER VI</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Anaxagoras of Klazomenai</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_290'>290-318</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td class='c010' colspan='2'>CHAPTER VII</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>The Pythagoreans</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_319'>319-356</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td class='c010' colspan='2'><span class='pageno' id='Page_x'>x</span>CHAPTER VIII</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>The Younger Eleatics</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_357'>357-379</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td class='c010' colspan='2'>CHAPTER IX</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Leukippos of Miletos</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_380'>380-404</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr><td class='c010' colspan='2'>CHAPTER X</td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Eclecticism and Reaction</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_405'>405-418</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c011' colspan='2'>APPENDIX</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>The Sources</span></td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_419'>419-426</a></td> - </tr> - <tr><td> </td></tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'>INDEX</td> - <td class='c009'><a href='#Page_427'>427-433</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c004'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_xi'>xi</span>ABBREVIATIONS</div> - </div> -</div> - -<table class='table0' summary=''> -<colgroup> -<col width='28%' /> -<col width='71%' /> -</colgroup> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><i>Arch.</i></td> - <td class='c012'><span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie.</cite></span> Berlin, 1888-1908.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Beare.</span></td> - <td class='c012'><cite>Greek Theories of Elementary Cognition</cite>, by John I. Beare. Oxford, 1906.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Diels</span> <cite>Dox.</cite></td> - <td class='c012'><span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Doxographi graeci.</cite></span> Hermannus Diels. Berlin, 1879.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Diels</span> <cite>Vors.</cite></td> - <td class='c012'><span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker</cite></span>, von Hermann Diels, Zweite Auflage, Erster Band. Berlin, 1906.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Gomperz.</span></td> - <td class='c012'><cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, by Theodor Gomperz, Authorised (English) Edition, vol. i. London, 1901.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Jacoby.</span></td> - <td class='c012'><span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Apollodors Chronik</cite></span>, von Felix Jacoby (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Philol. Unters.</cite></span> Heft xvi.). Berlin, 1902.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'>R. P.</td> - <td class='c012'><span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Historia Philosophiae Graecae</cite></span>, H. Ritter et L. Preller. Editio octava, quam curavit Eduardus Wellmann. Gotha, 1898.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><span class='sc'>Zeller.</span></td> - <td class='c012'><i>Die Philosophie der Griechen, dargestellt von Dr. Eduard Zeller.</i> Erster Theil, Fünfte Auflage. Leipzig, 1892.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c004'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_1'>1</span><span class='xlarge'>EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY</span></div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='chapter'> - <h2 class='c005'>INTRODUCTION</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>The cosmological character of early Greek philosophy.</div> - -<p class='c002'>I. It was not till the primitive view of the world -and the customary rules of life had broken down, that -the Greeks, began to feel the needs which philosophies -of nature and of conduct seek to satisfy. Nor were -those needs felt all at once. The traditional maxims -of conduct were not seriously questioned till the old -view of nature had passed away; and, for this reason, -the earliest philosophers busied themselves mainly -with speculations about the world around them. In -due season, Logic was called into being to meet a fresh -want. The pursuit of cosmological inquiry beyond a -certain point inevitably brought to light a wide divergence -between science and common sense, which was -itself a problem that demanded solution, and moreover -constrained philosophers to study the means of defending -their paradoxes against the prejudices of the unscientific -many. Later still, the prevailing interest in logical -matters raised the question of the origin and validity -of knowledge; while, about the same time, the breakdown -of traditional morality gave rise to Ethics. The -period which precedes the rise of Logic and Ethics has -<span class='pageno' id='Page_2'>2</span>thus a distinctive character of its own, and may fitly be -treated apart.<a id='r1' /><a href='#f1' class='c014'><sup>[1]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The primitive view of the world.</div> - -<p class='c002'>II. Even in the earliest times of which we have any -record, the primitive view of the world is fast passing -away. We are left to gather what manner of thing it -was from the stray glimpses we get of it here and there -in the older literature, to which it forms a sort of sombre -background, and from the many strange myths and -stranger rites that lived on, as if to bear witness of it to -later times, not only in out-of-the-way parts of Hellas, -but even in the “mysteries” of the more cultivated -states. So far as we can see, it must have been essentially -a thing of shreds and patches, ready to fall in -pieces as soon as stirred by the fresh breeze of a larger -experience and a more fearless curiosity. The only -explanation of the world it could offer was a wild tale -of the origin of things. Such a story as that of -Ouranos, Gaia, and Kronos belongs plainly, as Mr. -Lang has shown in <cite>Custom and Myth</cite>, to the same -level of thought as the Maori tale of Papa and Rangi; -while in its details the Greek myth is, if anything, the -more savage of the two.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We must not allow ourselves to be misled by metaphors -about “the childhood of the race,” though even -these, if properly understood, are suggestive enough. -Our ideas of the true state of a child’s mind are apt to be -coloured by that theory of antenatal existence which has -found, perhaps, its highest expression in Wordsworth’s -<span class='pageno' id='Page_3'>3</span><cite>Ode on the Intimations of Immortality</cite>. We transfer these -ideas to the race generally, and are thus led to think -of the men who made and repeated myths as simple, -innocent creatures who were somehow nearer than we are -to the beginning of things, and so, perhaps, saw with a -clearer vision. A truer view of what a child’s thoughts -really are will help to put us on the right track. Left -to themselves, children are often tormented by vague -terrors of surrounding objects which they fear to confide -to any one. Their games are based upon an animistic -theory of things, and they are great believers in luck -and in the lot. They are devotees, too, of that “cult of -odds and ends” which is fetishism; and the unsightly -old dolls which they often cherish more fondly than -the choicest products of the toy-shop, remind us -forcibly of the ungainly stocks and stones which -Pausanias found in the Holy of Holies of many a -stately Greek temple. At Sparta the Tyndaridai were -a couple of boards, while the old image of Hera at -Samos was a roughly-hewn log.<a id='r2' /><a href='#f2' class='c014'><sup>[2]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>On the other hand, we must remember that, even -in the earliest times of which we have any record, the -world was already very old. Those Greeks who first -tried to understand nature were not at all in the -position of men setting out on a hitherto untrodden -path. There was already in the field a tolerably -consistent view of the world, though no doubt it was -rather implied and assumed in ritual and myth than -distinctly realised as such. The early thinkers did a -far greater thing than merely to make a beginning. -By turning their backs on the savage view of things, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_4'>4</span>they renewed their youth, and with it, as it proved, the -youth of the world, at a time when the world seemed -in its dotage.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The marvel is that they were able to do this so -thoroughly as they did. A savage myth might be preserved -here and there to the scandal of philosophers; -fetishes, totems, and magic rites might lurk in holes and -corners with the moles and with the bats, to be unearthed -long afterwards by the curious in such matters. But -the all-pervading superstition, which we call primitive -because we know not how or whence it came, was gone -for ever; and we find Herodotos noting with unfeigned -surprise the existence among “barbarians” of beliefs -and customs which, not so long ago, his own forefathers -had taught and practised quite as zealously as ever did -Libyan or Scyth. Even then, he might have found -most of them surviving on the “high places” of -Hellas.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Traces of the primitive view in early literature.</div> - -<p class='c002'>III. In one respect the way had been prepared -already. Long before history begins, the colonisation -of the islands and the coasts of Asia Minor had -brought about a state of things that was not favourable -to the rigid maintenance of traditional customs and -ways of thought. A myth is essentially a local thing, -and though the emigrants might give the names of -ancestral sanctuaries to similar spots in their new homes, -they could not transfer with the names the old sentiment -of awe. Besides, these were, on the whole, stirring -and joyful times. The spirit of adventure is not -favourable to superstition, and men whose chief -occupation is fighting are not apt to be oppressed -by that “fear of the world” which some tell us is the -normal state of the savage mind. Even the savage -<span class='pageno' id='Page_5'>5</span>becomes in great measure free from it when he is -really happy.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>1. Homer.</div> - -<p class='c002'>That is why we find so few traces of the primitive -view of the world in Homer. The gods have become -frankly human, and everything savage is, so far as may -be, kept out of sight. There are, of course, vestiges of -early beliefs and practices, but they are exceptional. -In that strange episode of the Fourteenth Book of -the <cite>Iliad</cite> known as <cite>The Deceiving of Zeus</cite> we find a -number of theogonical ideas which are otherwise quite -foreign to Homer, but they are treated with so little -seriousness that the whole thing has even been regarded -as a parody or burlesque of some primitive -poem on the birth of the gods. That, however, is to -mistake the spirit of Homer. He finds the old myth -ready to his hand, and sees in it matter for a “joyous -tale,” just as Demodokos did in the loves of Ares and -Aphrodite. There is no antagonism to traditional -views, but rather a complete detachment from them.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It has often been noted that Homer never speaks -of the primitive custom of purification for bloodshed. -The dead heroes are burned, not buried, as the kings of -continental Hellas were. Ghosts play hardly any part. -In the <cite>Iliad</cite> we have, to be sure, the ghost of Patroklos, -in close connexion with the solitary instance of human -sacrifice in Homer. All that was part of the traditional -story, and Homer says as little about it as he can. -There is also the <cite>Nekyia</cite> in the Eleventh Book of the -<cite>Odyssey</cite>, which has been assigned to a late date on the -ground that it contains Orphic ideas. The reasoning -does not appear cogent. As we shall see, the Orphics -did not so much invent new ideas as revive old ones, -and if the legend took Odysseus to the abode of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_6'>6</span>dead, that had to be described in accordance with the -accepted views about it.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In fact, we are never entitled to infer from Homer’s -silence that the primitive view was unknown to him. -The absence of certain things from the poems is due -to reticence rather than ignorance; for, wherever -anything to his purpose was to be got from an old -story, he did not hesitate to use it. On the other -hand, when the tradition necessarily brought him into -contact with savage ideas, he prefers to treat them with -reserve. We may infer, then, that at least in a certain -society, that of the princes for whom Homer sang, the -primitive view of the world was already discredited by -a comparatively early date.<a id='r3' /><a href='#f3' class='c014'><sup>[3]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>2. Hesiod.</div> - -<p class='c002'>IV. When we come to Hesiod, we seem to be in -another world. We hear stories of the gods which are -not only irrational but repulsive, and these stories are -told quite seriously. Hesiod makes the Muses say: -“We know how to tell many false things that are like -the truth; but we know too, when we will, to utter what -is true.”<a id='r4' /><a href='#f4' class='c014'><sup>[4]</sup></a> This means that he was quite conscious of -the difference between the Homeric spirit and his own. -The old light-heartedness is gone, and it is important -to tell the truth about the gods. Hesiod knows, too, -that he belongs to a later and a sadder time than -Homer. In describing the Ages of the World, he inserts -a fifth age between those of Bronze and Iron. That -is the Age of the Heroes, the age Homer sang of. It -was better than the Bronze Age which came before it, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_7'>7</span>and far better than that which followed it, the Age of -Iron, in which Hesiod lives.<a id='r5' /><a href='#f5' class='c014'><sup>[5]</sup></a> He also feels that he is -singing for another class. It is to shepherds and -husbandmen he addresses himself, and the princes for -whom Homer sang have become remote persons who -give “crooked dooms.” For common men there is no -hope but in hard, unceasing toil. It is the voice of the -people we now hear for the first time, and of a people -for whom the romance and splendour of the Greek -Middle Ages meant nothing. The primitive view of the -world had never really died out among them; so it was -natural for their first spokesman to assume it in his -poems. That is why we find in Hesiod these old, -savage tales, which Homer disdained to speak of.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Yet it would be wrong to see in the <cite>Theogony</cite> a -mere revival of the old superstition. Nothing can ever -be revived just as it was; for in every reaction there is -a polemical element which differentiates it completely -from the earlier stage it vainly seeks to reproduce. -Hesiod could not help being affected by the new -spirit which trade and adventure had awakened over the -sea, and he became a pioneer in spite of himself. The -rudiments of what grew into Ionic science and history -are to be found in his poems, and he really did more -than any one to hasten that decay of the old ideas which -he was seeking to arrest. The <cite>Theogony</cite> is an attempt -to reduce all the stories about the gods into a single -system, and system is necessarily fatal to so wayward -a thing as mythology. Hesiod, no less than Homer, -teaches a panhellenic polytheism; the only difference -<span class='pageno' id='Page_8'>8</span>is that with him this is more directly based on the -legends attached to the local cults, which he thus sought -to invest with a national significance. The result is that -the myth becomes primary and the cult secondary, a -complete inversion of the primitive relation. Herodotos -tells us that it was Homer and Hesiod who made a -theogony for the Hellenes, who gave the gods their -names, and distributed among them their offices and -arts,<a id='r6' /><a href='#f6' class='c014'><sup>[6]</sup></a> and it is perfectly true. The Olympian pantheon -took the place of the old local gods in men’s minds, and -this was as much the doing of Hesiod as of Homer. -The ordinary man had no ties to this company of gods, -but at most to one or two of them; and even these -he would hardly recognise in the humanised figures, -detached from all local associations, which poetry had -substituted for the older objects of worship. The gods -of Greece had become a splendid subject for art; but -they came between the Hellenes and their ancestral -religions. They were incapable of satisfying the needs -of the people, and that is the secret of the religious -revival which we shall have to consider in the sequel.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Cosmogony.</div> - -<p class='c002'>V. Nor is it only in this way that Hesiod shows -himself a child of his time. His <cite>Theogony</cite> is at the -same time a Cosmogony, though it would seem that -here he was following others rather than working out -a thought of his own. At any rate, he only mentions -the two great cosmogonical figures, Chaos and Eros, -and does not really bring them into connexion with -his system. The conception of Chaos represents a -distinct effort to picture the beginning of things. It is -not a formless mixture, but rather, as its etymology -indicates, the yawning gulf or gap where nothing is as -<span class='pageno' id='Page_9'>9</span>yet.<a id='r7' /><a href='#f7' class='c014'><sup>[7]</sup></a> We may be sure that this is not primitive. -Savage man does not feel called upon to form an idea -of the very beginning of all things; he takes for -granted that there was something to begin with. The -other figure, that of Eros, was doubtless intended to -explain the impulse to production which gave rise to -the whole process. That, at least, is what the Maoris -mean by it, as may be seen from the following -remarkable passage<a id='r8' /><a href='#f8' class='c014'><sup>[8]</sup></a>:—</p> - -<div class='lg-container-b c015'> - <div class='linegroup'> - <div class='group'> - <div class='line'>From the conception the increase,</div> - <div class='line'>From the increase the swelling,</div> - <div class='line'>From the swelling the thought,</div> - <div class='line'>From the thought the remembrance,</div> - <div class='line'>From the remembrance the desire.</div> - <div class='line'>The word became fruitful,</div> - <div class='line'>It dwelt with the feeble glimmering,</div> - <div class='line'>It brought forth the night.</div> - </div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c016'>Hesiod must have had some such primitive speculation -to work on, but he does not tell us anything clearly -on the subject.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We have records of great activity in the production -of cosmogonies during the whole of the sixth century -B.C., and we know something of the systems of -Epimenides, Pherekydes,<a id='r9' /><a href='#f9' class='c014'><sup>[9]</sup></a> and Akousilaos. As there -were speculations of this kind even before Hesiod, we -need have no hesitation in believing that the earliest -Orphic cosmogony goes back to that century too.<a id='r10' /><a href='#f10' class='c014'><sup>[10]</sup></a> -<span class='pageno' id='Page_10'>10</span>The feature which is common to all these systems is -the attempt to get behind the gap, and to put Kronos -or Zeus in the first place. This is what Aristotle -has in view when he distinguishes the “theologians” -from those who were half theologians and half philosophers, -and who put what was best in the beginning.<a id='r11' /><a href='#f11' class='c014'><sup>[11]</sup></a> -It is obvious, however, that this process is the -very reverse of scientific, and might be carried on -indefinitely; so we have nothing to do with the -cosmogonists in our present inquiry, except so far -as they can be shown to have influenced the course of -more sober investigations. Indeed, these speculations -are still based on the primitive view of the world, -and so fall outside the limits we have traced for -ourselves.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>General characteristics of early Greek cosmology.</div> - -<p class='c002'>VI. What, then, was the step that placed the Ionian -cosmologists once for all above the level of the Maoris? -Grote and Zeller make it consist in the substitution of -impersonal causes acting according to law for personal -causes acting arbitrarily. But the distinction between -personal and impersonal was not really felt in antiquity, -and it is a mistake to lay much stress on it. It seems -rather that the real advance made by the scientific men -of Miletos was that they left off telling tales. They -gave up the hopeless task of describing what was when -as yet there was nothing, and asked instead what all -things really are now.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'><span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>Ex nihilo nihil.</i></span></div> - -<p class='c002'>The great principle which underlies all their -thinking, though it is first put into words by -Parmenides, is that <em>Nothing comes into being out of -nothing, and nothing passes away into nothing</em>. They -saw, however, that particular things were always -<span class='pageno' id='Page_11'>11</span>coming into being and passing away again, and from this -it followed that their existence was no true or stable -one. The only things that were real and eternal were -the original matter which passed through all these -changes and the motion which gave rise to them, to -which was soon added that law of proportion or compensation -which, despite the continual becoming and passing -away of things, secured the relative permanence and -stability of the various forms of existence that go to -make up the world. That these were, in fact, the -leading ideas of the early cosmologists, cannot, of course, -be proved till we have given a detailed exposition of -their systems; but we can show at once how natural it -was for such thoughts to come to them. It is always -the problem of change and decay that first excites the -wonder which, as Plato says, is the starting-point of -all philosophy. Besides this, there was in the Ionic -nature a vein of melancholy which led it to brood -upon the instability of things. Even before the -time of Thales, Mimnermos of Kolophon sings the -sadness of change; and, at a later date, the lament -of Simonides, that the generations of men fall like the -leaves of the forest, touches a chord already struck by -the earliest singer of Ionia.<a id='r12' /><a href='#f12' class='c014'><sup>[12]</sup></a> Now, so long as men -could believe everything they saw was alive like themselves, -the spectacle of the unceasing death and new -birth of nature would only tinge their thoughts with a -certain mournfulness, which would find its expression -in such things as the Linos dirges which the Greeks -borrowed from their Asiatic neighbours;<a id='r13' /><a href='#f13' class='c014'><sup>[13]</sup></a> but when -<span class='pageno' id='Page_12'>12</span>primitive animism, which had seen conscious life everywhere, -was gone, and polytheistic mythology, which -had personified at least the more striking natural -phenomena, was going, it must have seemed that there -was nowhere any abiding reality. Nowadays we are -accustomed, for good and for ill, to the notion of -dead things, obedient, not to inner impulses, but solely -to mechanical laws. But that is not the view of the -natural man, and we may be sure that, when first it -forced itself on him, it must have provoked a strong -sense of dissatisfaction. Relief was only to be had -from the reflexion that as nothing comes from nothing, -nothing can pass away into nothing. There must, -then, be something which always is, something fundamental -which persists throughout all change, and -ceases to exist in one form only that it may reappear in -another. It is significant that this something is spoken -of as “deathless” and “ageless.”<a id='r14' /><a href='#f14' class='c014'><sup>[14]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Φύσις</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='In.7'></a>VII. So far as I know, no historian of Greek -philosophy has clearly laid it down that the word -which was used by the early cosmologists to express -this idea of a permanent and primary substance was -none other than φύσις; and that the title Περὶ φύσεως, -so commonly given to philosophical works of the -sixth and fifth centuries <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>,<a id='r15' /><a href='#f15' class='c014'><sup>[15]</sup></a> means simply <cite>Concerning -the Primary Substance</cite>. Both Plato and -Aristotle use the term in this sense when they are -<span class='pageno' id='Page_13'>13</span>discussing the earlier philosophy,<a id='r16' /><a href='#f16' class='c014'><sup>[16]</sup></a> and its history shows -clearly enough what its original meaning must have -been. In Greek philosophical language, φύσις always -means that which is primary, fundamental, and -persistent, as opposed to what is secondary, derivative, -and transient; what is “given,” as opposed to that -which is made or becomes. It is what is there to -begin with. It is true that Plato and his successors -also identify φύσις with the best or most normal condition -of a thing; but that is just because they held -the goal of any development to be prior to the process -by which it is reached. Such an idea was wholly unknown -to the pioneers of philosophy. They sought -the explanation of the incomplete world we know, not -in the end, but in the beginning. It seemed to them -that, if only they could strip off all the modifications -which Art and Chance had introduced, they would get -at the ultimately real; and so the search after φύσις, -first in the world at large and afterwards in human -society, became the chief interest of the age we have to -deal with.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The word ἀρχή, by which the early cosmologists -are usually said to have designated the object of their -search, is in this sense purely Aristotelian. It is -quite natural that it should be employed in the well-known -historical sketch of the First Book of the <cite>Metaphysics</cite>; -for Aristotle is there testing the theories of -earlier thinkers by his own doctrine of the four causes. -But Plato never uses the term in this connexion, and -it does not occur once in the genuine fragments of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_14'>14</span>early philosophers. It is confined to the Stoic and -Peripatetic handbooks from which most of our knowledge -is derived, and these simply repeat Aristotle. -Zeller has pointed out in a footnote<a id='r17' /><a href='#f17' class='c014'><sup>[17]</sup></a> that it would be -an anachronism to refer the subtle Aristotelian use -of the word to the beginnings of speculation. To -Anaximander ἀρχή could only have meant “beginning,” -and it was far more than a beginning that the -early cosmologists were looking for: it was the <em>eternal</em> -ground of all things.</p> - -<p class='c002'>There is one very important conclusion that follows -at once from the account just given of the meaning of -φύσις, and it is, that the search for the primary substance -really was the thing that interested the Ionian -philosophers. Had their main object been, as -Teichmüller held it was, the explanation of celestial -and meteorological phenomena, their researches would -not have been called Περὶ φύσεως ἱστορίη,<a id='r18' /><a href='#f18' class='c014'><sup>[18]</sup></a> but rather -Περὶ οὐρανοῦ or Περὶ μετεώρων. And this we shall -find confirmed by a study of the way in which Greek -cosmology developed. The growing thought which -may be traced through the successive representatives -of any school is always that which concerns the -primary substance, while the astronomical and other -theories are, in the main, peculiar to the individual -thinkers. Teichmüller undoubtedly did good service -by his protest against the treatment of these theories -as mere isolated curiosities. They form, on the contrary, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_15'>15</span>coherent systems which must be looked at as -wholes. But it is none the less true that Greek -philosophy began, as it ended, with the search for what -was abiding in the flux of things.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Motion and rest.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='In.8'></a>VIII. But how could this give back to nature the -life of which it had been robbed by advancing knowledge? -Simply by making it possible for the life -that had hitherto been supposed to reside in each -particular thing to be transferred to the one thing -of which all others were passing forms. The very -process of birth, growth, and decay might now be -regarded as the unceasing activity of the one ultimate -reality. Aristotle and his followers expressed this by -saying that the early cosmologists believed in an -“eternal motion,” and in substance this is correct, -though it is not probable that they said anything -about the eternal motion in their writings. It is more -likely that they simply took it for granted. In early -times, it is not movement but rest that has to be -accounted for, and we may be sure that the eternity -of motion was not asserted till it had been denied. -As we shall see, it was Parmenides who first denied -it. The idea of a single ultimate substance, when -thoroughly worked out, seemed to leave no room for -motion; and after the time of Parmenides, we do -find that philosophers were concerned to show how -it began. At first, this would not seem to require -explanation at all.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Modern writers sometimes give the name of -Hylozoism to this way of thinking, but the term is -apt to be misleading. It suggests theories which deny -the separate reality of life and spirit, whereas, in the -days of Thales, and even far later, the distinction -<span class='pageno' id='Page_16'>16</span>between matter and spirit had not been felt, still less -formulated in such a way that it could be denied. -The uncreated, indestructible reality of which these -early thinkers tell us was a body, or even matter, if we -choose to call it so; but it was not matter in the -sense in which matter is opposed to spirit.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The downfall of the primitive view of the world.</div> - -<p class='c002'>IX. We have indicated the main characteristics of -the primitive view of the world, and we have sketched -in outline the view which displaced it; we must now -consider the causes which led to the downfall of the -one and the rise of the other. Foremost among these -was undoubtedly the widening of the Greek horizon -occasioned by the great extension of maritime enterprise -which followed the decay of the Phoenician naval -supremacy. The scene of the old stories had, as a -rule, been laid just outside the boundaries of the world -known to the men who believed them. Odysseus does -not meet with Kirke or the Kyklops or the Sirens -in the familiar Aegean, but in regions which lay -beyond the ken of the Greeks at the time the <cite>Odyssey</cite> -was composed. Now, however, the West was beginning -to be familiar too, and the fancy of the Greek -explorers led them to identify the lands which they -discovered with the places which the hero of the -national fairy-tale had come to in his wanderings. It -was soon discovered that the monstrous beings in -question were no longer to be found there, and the -belief grew up that they had never been there at all. -So, too, the Milesians had settled colonies all round the -Euxine. The colonists went out with Ἀργὼ πᾶσι -μέλουσα in their minds; and, at the same time as they -changed the name of the Inhospitable to the Hospitable -Sea, they localised the “far country” (αἶα) of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_17'>17</span>primitive tale, and made Jason fetch the Golden Fleece -from Kolchis. Above all, the Phokaians had explored -the Mediterranean as far as the Pillars of Herakles,<a id='r19' /><a href='#f19' class='c014'><sup>[19]</sup></a> -and the new knowledge that the “endless paths” of -the sea had boundaries must have moved men’s minds -in much the same way as the discovery of America did -in later days. A single example will illustrate the -process which was always going on. According to the -primitive view, the heavens were supported by a giant -called Atlas. No one had ever seen him, though he -was supposed to live in Arkadia. The Phokaian explorers -identified him with a cloud-capped mountain in -Africa, and once they had done this, the old belief was -doomed. It was impossible to go on believing in a -god who was also a mountain, conveniently situated -for the trader to steer by, as he sailed to Tarshish in -quest of silver.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Alleged Oriental origin of philosophy.</div> - -<p class='c002'>X. But by far the most important question we have -to face is that of the nature and extent of the influence -exercised by what we call Eastern wisdom on the -Greek mind. It is a common idea even now that the -Greeks in some way derived their philosophy from -Egypt and Babylon, and we must therefore try to -understand as clearly as possible what such a statement -really means. To begin with, we must observe -that no writer of the period during which Greek -philosophy flourished knows anything at all of its -having come from the East. Herodotos would not -have omitted to say so, had he ever heard of it; for it -would have confirmed his own belief in the Egyptian -origin of Greek religion and civilisation.<a id='r20' /><a href='#f20' class='c014'><sup>[20]</sup></a> Plato, who -<span class='pageno' id='Page_18'>18</span>had a very great respect for the Egyptians on other -grounds, distinctly implies that they were a businesslike -rather than a philosophical people.<a id='r21' /><a href='#f21' class='c014'><sup>[21]</sup></a> Aristotle -speaks only of the origin of mathematics in Egypt<a id='r22' /><a href='#f22' class='c014'><sup>[22]</sup></a> (a -point to which we shall return), though, if he had -known of an Egyptian philosophy, it would have suited -his argument better to mention that. It is not till a -far later date, when Egyptian priests and Alexandrian -Jews began to vie with one another in discovering the -sources of Greek philosophy in their own past, that we -first have definite statements to the effect that it came -from Phoenicia or Egypt. Here, however, we must -carefully note two things. In the first place, the word -“philosophy” had come by that time to include -theology of a more or less mystical type, and was even -applied to various forms of asceticism.<a id='r23' /><a href='#f23' class='c014'><sup>[23]</sup></a> In the second -place, the so-called Egyptian philosophy was only -arrived at by a process of turning primitive myths into -allegories. We are still able to judge Philo’s Old -Testament interpretation for ourselves, and we may be -sure that the Egyptian allegorists were even more -arbitrary; for they had far less promising material to -work on. Nothing can be more savage than the myth -of Isis and Osiris;<a id='r24' /><a href='#f24' class='c014'><sup>[24]</sup></a> yet it is first interpreted according -<span class='pageno' id='Page_19'>19</span>to the ideas of later Greek philosophy, and then -declared to be the original source of that philosophy.</p> - -<p class='c002'>This method of interpretation may be said to -culminate with the Neopythagorean Noumenios, from -whom it passed to the Christian Apologists. It is -Noumenios who asks, “What is Plato, but Moses speaking -Attic?”<a id='r25' /><a href='#f25' class='c014'><sup>[25]</sup></a> It seems likely, indeed, that he was thinking -of certain marked resemblances between Plato’s -<cite>Laws</cite> and the Levitical Code when he said this—resemblances -due to the fact that certain primitive -legal ideas are similarly modified in both; but in any -case Clement and Eusebios give the remark a far wider -application.<a id='r26' /><a href='#f26' class='c014'><sup>[26]</sup></a> At the Renaissance, this absurd farrago -was revived along with everything else, and certain -ideas derived from the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Praeparatio Evangelica</cite></span> continued -for long to colour accepted views on the subject. -Even Cudworth speaks complacently of the ancient -“Moschical or Mosaical philosophy” taught by Thales -and Pythagoras.<a id='r27' /><a href='#f27' class='c014'><sup>[27]</sup></a> It is important to realise the true -origin of this deeply-rooted prejudice against the -originality of the Greeks. It does not come from -modern researches into the beliefs of ancient peoples; -for these have disclosed absolutely nothing in the way of -evidence for a Phoenician or Egyptian philosophy. It is -a mere residuum of the Alexandrian passion for allegory.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_20'>20</span>Of course no one nowadays would rest the case -for the Oriental origin of Greek philosophy on the -evidence of Clement or Eusebios; the favourite -argument in recent times has been the analogy of the -arts and religion. We are seeing more and more, it is -said, that the Greeks derived their art and many of -their religious ideas from the East; and it is urged -that the same will in all probability prove true of their -philosophy. This is a specious argument, but not -in the least conclusive. It ignores altogether the -essential difference in the way these things are transmitted -from people to people. Material civilisation -and the arts may pass easily from one people to -another, though they have not a common language, -and certain simple religious ideas can be conveyed by -ritual better than in any other way. Philosophy, on -the other hand, can only be expressed in abstract -language, and it can only be transmitted by educated -men, whether by means of books or oral teaching. -Now we know of no Greek, in the times we are dealing -with, who knew enough of any Oriental language to -read an Egyptian book or even to listen to the discourse -of an Egyptian priest, and we never hear till -a late date of Oriental teachers who wrote or spoke in -Greek. The Greek traveller in Egypt would no doubt -pick up a few words of Egyptian, and it is certain that -somehow or other the priests could make themselves -understood by the Greeks. They were able to -rebuke Hekataios for his family pride, and Plato -tells a story of the same sort at the beginning of -the <cite>Timaeus</cite>.<a id='r28' /><a href='#f28' class='c014'><sup>[28]</sup></a> But they must have made use of -interpreters, and it is impossible to conceive of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_21'>21</span>philosophical ideas being communicated through an -uneducated dragoman.<a id='r29' /><a href='#f29' class='c014'><sup>[29]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>But really it is not worth while to ask whether the -communication of philosophical ideas was possible or -not, till some evidence has been produced that any of -these peoples had a philosophy to communicate. No -such evidence has yet been discovered, and, so far as -we know, the Indians were the only people besides the -Greeks who ever had anything that deserves the name. -No one now will suggest that Greek philosophy came -from India, and indeed everything points to the conclusion -that Indian philosophy came from Greece. -The chronology of Sanskrit literature is an extremely -difficult subject; but, so far as we can see, the great -Indian systems are later in date than the Greek -philosophies which they most nearly resemble. Of -course the mysticism of the Upanishads and of -Buddhism were of native growth and profoundly influenced -philosophy, but they were not themselves -philosophy in any true sense of the word.<a id='r30' /><a href='#f30' class='c014'><sup>[30]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Egyptian mathematics.</div> - -<p class='c002'>XI. It would, however, be another thing to say that -Greek philosophy originated quite independently of -Oriental influences. The Greeks themselves believed -<span class='pageno' id='Page_22'>22</span>their mathematical science to be of Egyptian origin, -and they must also have known something of Babylonian -astronomy. It cannot be an accident that -philosophy originated in Ionia just at the time when -communication with these two countries was easiest, -and it is significant that the very man who was said -to have introduced geometry from Egypt is also regarded -as the first of the philosophers. It thus -becomes very important for us to discover, if we can, -what Egyptian mathematics meant. We shall see -that, even here, the Greeks were really original.</p> - -<p class='c002'>There is a papyrus in the Rhind collection at the -British Museum<a id='r31' /><a href='#f31' class='c014'><sup>[31]</sup></a> which gives us an instructive glimpse -of arithmetic and geometry as these sciences were -understood on the banks of the Nile. It is the work -of one Aahmes, and contains rules for calculations both -of an arithmetical and a geometrical character. The -arithmetical problems mostly concern measures of corn -and fruit, and deal particularly with such questions as -the division of a number of measures among a given -number of persons, the number of loaves or jars of beer -that certain measures will yield, and the wages due -to the workmen for a certain piece of work. It -corresponds exactly, in fact, to the description of -Egyptian arithmetic which Plato has given us in the -<cite>Laws</cite>, where he tells us that the children learnt along -with their letters to solve problems in the distribution -of apples and wreaths to greater or smaller numbers of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_23'>23</span>people, the pairing of boxers and wrestlers, and so -forth.<a id='r32' /><a href='#f32' class='c014'><sup>[32]</sup></a> This is clearly the origin of the art which the -Greeks called λογιστική, and they certainly borrowed -that from Egypt; but there is not the slightest trace -of what the Greeks called ἀριθμητική, or the scientific -study of numbers.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The geometry of the Rhind papyrus is of a similarly -utilitarian character, and Herodotos, who tells us that -Egyptian geometry arose from the necessity of measuring -the land afresh after the inundations, is obviously -far nearer the mark than Aristotle, who says that it -grew out of the leisure enjoyed by the priestly caste.<a id='r33' /><a href='#f33' class='c014'><sup>[33]</sup></a> -We find, accordingly, that the rules given for calculating -areas are only exact when these are rectangular. As -fields are usually more or less rectangular, this would -be sufficient for practical purposes. The rule for -finding what is called the <em>seqt</em> of a pyramid is, however, -on a rather higher level, as we should expect; for the -angles of the Egyptian pyramids really are equal, and -there must have been some method for obtaining this -result. It comes to this. Given the “length across -the sole of the foot,” that is, the diagonal of the base, -and that of the <em>piremus</em> or “ridge,” to find a number -which represents the ratio between them. This is done -by dividing half the diagonal of the base by the “ridge,” -and it is obvious that such a method might quite well -be discovered empirically. It seems an anachronism -to speak of elementary trigonometry in connexion with -<span class='pageno' id='Page_24'>24</span>a rule like this, and there is nothing to suggest that -the Egyptians went any further.<a id='r34' /><a href='#f34' class='c014'><sup>[34]</sup></a> That the Greeks -learnt as much from them, we shall see to be highly -probable, though we shall see also that, from a comparatively -early period, they generalised it so as to -make it of use in measuring the distances of inaccessible -objects, such as ships at sea. It was probably this -generalisation that suggested the idea of a science of -geometry, which was really the creation of the Pythagoreans, -and we can see how far the Greeks soon -surpassed their teachers from a remark of Demokritos -which has been preserved. He says (fr. 299): “I have -listened to many learned men, but no one has yet -surpassed me in the construction of figures out of lines -accompanied by demonstration, not even the Egyptian -<em>harpedonapts</em>, as they call them.”<a id='r35' /><a href='#f35' class='c014'><sup>[35]</sup></a> Now the word -ἁρπεδονάπτης is not Egyptian but Greek. It means -“cord-fastener,”<a id='r36' /><a href='#f36' class='c014'><sup>[36]</sup></a> and it is a striking coincidence that -the oldest Indian geometrical treatise is called the -<em>Çulvasutras</em> or “rules of the cord.” These things point -to the use of the triangle of which the sides are 3, 4, 5, -and which has always a right angle. We know that -this triangle was used from an early date among the -Chinese and the Hindus, who doubtless got it from -Babylon, and we shall see that Thales probably learnt -the use of it in Egypt.<a id='r37' /><a href='#f37' class='c014'><sup>[37]</sup></a> There is no reason whatever -for supposing that any of these peoples had in any -degree troubled themselves to give a theoretical -<span class='pageno' id='Page_25'>25</span>demonstration of its properties, though Demokritos -would certainly have been able to do so. Finally, -we must note the highly significant fact that all -mathematical terms are of purely Greek origin.<a id='r38' /><a href='#f38' class='c014'><sup>[38]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Babylonian astronomy.</div> - -<p class='c002'>XII. The other source from which the Ionians -directly or indirectly derived material for their cosmology -was the Babylonian astronomy. There is no -doubt that the Babylonians from a very early date had -recorded all celestial phenomena like eclipses. They -had also studied the planetary motions, and determined -the signs of the zodiac. Further, they were able to -predict the recurrence of the phenomena they had -observed with considerable accuracy by means of -cycles based on their recorded observations. I can see -no reason for doubting that they had observed the -phenomenon of precession. Indeed, they could hardly -have failed to notice it; for their observations went -back over so many centuries, that it would be quite -appreciable. We know that, at a later date, Ptolemy -estimated the precession of the equinoxes at one degree -in a hundred years, and it is extremely probable that -this is just the Babylonian value. At any rate, it -agrees very well with their division of the celestial -circle into 360 degrees, and made it possible for a -century to be regarded as a day in the “Great Year,” -a conception we shall meet with later on.<a id='r39' /><a href='#f39' class='c014'><sup>[39]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_26'>26</span>We shall see that Thales probably knew the cycle -which the Babylonians used to predict eclipses (<a href='#sec3'>§ 3</a>); -but it would be a mistake to suppose that the pioneers -of Greek science had any detailed knowledge of the -Babylonian astronomy. It was not till the time -of Plato that even the names of the planets were -known,<a id='r40' /><a href='#f40' class='c014'><sup>[40]</sup></a> and the recorded observations were only -made available in Alexandrian times. But, even if -they had known these, their originality would remain. -The Babylonians studied and recorded celestial -phenomena for what we call astrological purposes, not -from any scientific interest. There is no evidence at -all that their accumulated observations ever suggested -to them the least dissatisfaction with the primitive -view of the world, or that they attempted to account -for what they saw in any but the crudest way. The -Greeks, on the other hand, with far fewer data to go -upon, made at least three discoveries of capital -importance in the course of two or three generations. -In the first place, they discovered that the earth is a -sphere and does not rest on anything. In the second -<span class='pageno' id='Page_27'>27</span>place, they discovered the true theory of lunar and -solar eclipses; and, in close connexion with this, they -came to see, in the third place, that the earth is not -the centre of our system, but revolves round it like the -other planets. Not very much later, certain Greeks -even took, at least tentatively, the final step of identifying -the centre round which the earth and the planets -revolve with the sun. These discoveries will be discussed -in their proper place; they are only mentioned -here to show the gulf between Greek astronomy and -everything that had preceded it. The Babylonians -had as many thousand years as the Greeks had -centuries to make these discoveries, and it does not -appear that they ever thought of one of them. The -originality of the Greeks cannot be successfully -questioned till it can be shown that the Babylonians -had even an incorrect idea of what we call the solar -system.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We may sum up all this by saying that the Greeks -did not borrow either their philosophy or their science -from the East. They did, however, get from Egypt -certain rules of mensuration which, when generalised, -gave birth to geometry; while from Babylon they -learnt that the phenomena of the heavens recur in -cycles with the greatest regularity. This piece of -knowledge undoubtedly had a great deal to do with -the rise of science; for to the Greek it suggested -further questions such as the Babylonian did not -dream of.<a id='r41' /><a href='#f41' class='c014'><sup>[41]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The scientific character of the early Greek cosmology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_28'>28</span><a id='In.13'></a>XIII. It is necessary to say something as to the -scientific worth of the philosophy we are about to -study. We have just seen that the Eastern peoples -were, at the time of which we write, considerably richer -than the Greeks in accumulated facts, though these -facts had certainly not been observed for any scientific -purpose, and their possession never suggested a revision -of the primitive view of the world. The Greeks, however, -saw in them something that could be turned to -account, and they were never as a people slow to act -on the maxim, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>Chacun prend son bien partout où il le -trouve</i></span>. The most striking monument of this spirit -which has come down to us is the work of Herodotos; -and the visit of Solon to Croesus which he describes, -however unhistorical it may be, gives a very lively and -faithful picture of it. Croesus tells Solon that he has -heard much of “his wisdom and his wanderings,” and -how, from love of knowledge (φιλοσοφέων), he has -travelled over much land for the purpose of seeing -what was to be seen (θεωρίης εἵνεκεν). The words -θεωρίη, φιλοσοφίη, and ἱστορίη are, in fact, the catchwords -of the time, though they had, we must remember, -a somewhat different meaning from that which they -were afterwards made to bear at Athens.<a id='r42' /><a href='#f42' class='c014'><sup>[42]</sup></a> The idea -that underlies them all may, perhaps, be best rendered -in English by the word <em>Curiosity</em>; and it was just this -<span class='pageno' id='Page_29'>29</span>great gift of curiosity, and the desire to see all the -wonderful things—pyramids, inundations, and so forth—that -were to be seen, which enabled the Greeks to pick -up and turn to their own use such scraps of knowledge -as they could come by among the barbarians. No -sooner did a Greek philosopher learn half a dozen -geometrical propositions, and hear that the phenomena -of the heavens recur in cycles, than he set to work to -look for law everywhere in nature, and, with a splendid -audacity, almost amounting to ὕβρις, to construct a -system of the universe. We may smile, if we please, at -the strange medley of childish fancy and true scientific -insight which these Titanic efforts display, and sometimes -we feel disposed to sympathise with the sages of -the day who warned their more daring contemporaries -“to think the thoughts befitting man’s estate” (ἀνθρώπινα -φρονεῖν). But we shall do well to remember at the -same time that even now it is just such hardy anticipations -of experience that make scientific progress possible, -and that nearly every one of the early inquirers whom -we are about to study made some permanent addition -to the store of positive knowledge, besides opening up -new views of the world in every direction.</p> - -<p class='c002'>There is no justification either for the idea that -Greek science was built up solely by more or less lucky -guesswork, instead of by observation and experiment. -The nature of our tradition, which mostly consists of -<em>Placita</em>—that is, of what we call “results”—tends, no -doubt, to create this impression. We are seldom told -why any early philosopher held the views he did, and -the appearance of a string of “opinions” suggests -dogmatism. There are, however, certain exceptions to -the general character of the tradition; and we may -<span class='pageno' id='Page_30'>30</span>reasonably suppose that, if the later Greeks had been -interested in the matter, there would have been many -more. We shall see that Anaximander made some -remarkable discoveries in marine biology, which the -researches of the nineteenth century have fully confirmed -(<a href='#sec21'>§ 21</a>), and even Xenophanes supported one -of his theories by referring to the fossils and petrifactions -of such widely separated places as Malta, Paros, and -Syracuse (<a href='#sec59'>§ 59</a>). This is enough to show that the -theory, so commonly held by the earlier philosophers, -that the earth had been originally in a moist state, was -not mythological in origin, but was based on, or at -any rate confirmed by, biological and palaeontological -observations of a thoroughly modern and scientific -type. It would surely be absurd to imagine that the -men who could make these observations had not the -curiosity or the ability to make many others of which -the memory is lost. Indeed, the idea that the Greeks -were not observers is almost ludicrously wrong, as is -proved by two simple considerations. The anatomical -accuracy of Greek sculpture bears witness to trained -habits of observation, and those of the highest order, -while the fixing of the seasons by the heliacal rising -and setting of the stars shows a familiarity with -celestial phenomena which is by no means common -at the present day.<a id='r43' /><a href='#f43' class='c014'><sup>[43]</sup></a> We know, then, that the Greeks -could observe well in matters affecting agriculture, -navigation, and the arts, and we know that they were -curious about the world. Is it conceivable that they -did not use their powers of observation to gratify that -curiosity? It is true, of course, that they had not our -<span class='pageno' id='Page_31'>31</span>instruments of precision; but a great deal can be -discovered by the help of very simple apparatus. It is -not to be supposed that Anaximander erected his -<em>gnomon</em> merely that the Spartans might know the -seasons.<a id='r44' /><a href='#f44' class='c014'><sup>[44]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Nor is it true that the Greeks made no use of -experiment. The rise of the experimental method -dates from the time when the medical schools began -to influence the development of philosophy, and -accordingly we find that the first recorded experiment -of a modern type is that of Empedokles with the -<em>klepsydra</em>. We have his own account of this (fr. <a href='#Em.100'>100</a>), -and we can see how it brought him to the verge of -anticipating both Harvey and Torricelli. It is once -more inconceivable that an inquisitive people should -have applied the experimental method in a single -case without extending it to the elucidation of other -problems.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Of course the great difficulty for us is the geocentric -hypothesis from which science inevitably started, though -only to outgrow it in a surprisingly short time. So -long as the earth is supposed to be in the centre of -the world, meteorology, in the later sense of the word, -is necessarily identified with astronomy. It is difficult -for us to feel at home in this point of view, and indeed -we have no suitable word to express what the Greeks -at first called an οὐρανός. It will be convenient -to use the word “world” for it; but then we must -remember that it does not refer solely, or even chiefly, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_32'>32</span>to the earth. The later word κόσμος bears witness to -the growth of scientific ideas. It meant at first the -marshalling of an army, and next the ordered constitution -of a state. It was transferred from this to the -world because in early days the regularity and -constancy of human life was far more clearly seen than -the uniformity of nature. Man lived in a charmed -circle of law and custom, but the world around him -still seemed lawless. That, too, is why, when the -regular course of nature was first realised, no better -word for it could be found than δίκη. It is the same -metaphor which still lives on in the expression -“natural law.”<a id='r45' /><a href='#f45' class='c014'><sup>[45]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The science of the sixth century was mainly -concerned, then, with those parts of the world that -are “aloft” (τὰ μετέωρα), and these include, along -with the heavenly bodies, such things as clouds, rainbows, -and lightning. That is how the heavenly bodies -came sometimes to be explained as ignited clouds, an -idea which seems astonishing to us. But we must -bear in mind that science inevitably and rightly began -with the most obvious hypothesis, and that it was -only the thorough working out of this that could show -its inadequacy. It is just because the Greeks were -the first people to take the geocentric hypothesis -seriously that they were able to go beyond it. Of -course the pioneers of Greek thought had no clear idea -of the nature of scientific hypothesis, and supposed -themselves to be dealing with ultimate reality. That -was inevitable before the rise of Logic. At the same -<span class='pageno' id='Page_33'>33</span>time, a sure instinct guided them to the right method, -and we can see how it was the effort to “save appearances”<a id='r46' /><a href='#f46' class='c014'><sup>[46]</sup></a> -that really operated from the first. It is, -therefore, to those men that we owe the conception of -an exact science which should ultimately take in the -whole world as its object. They fancied—absurdly -enough, no doubt—that they could work out this -science at once. We sometimes make the same mistake -nowadays; and it can no more rob the Greeks of the -honour of having been the first to see the true, though -perhaps unattainable, end of all science than it can rob -our own scientific men of the honour of having brought -that end nearer than it was. It is still knowledge of -the kind foreseen and attempted by the Greeks that -they are in search of.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Schools of philosophy.</div> - -<p class='c002'>XIV. Theophrastos, the first writer to treat the -history of Greek philosophy in a systematic way,<a id='r47' /><a href='#f47' class='c014'><sup>[47]</sup></a> -represented the early cosmologists as standing to one -another in the relation of master and scholar, and as -members of regular societies. This has been regarded -by many modern writers as an anachronism, and -some have even denied the existence of “schools” of -philosophy altogether. Such a reaction against the -older view was quite justified in so far as it was directed -against arbitrary classifications like the “Ionic” and -“Italian” schools, which are derived through Laertios -Diogenes from the Alexandrian writers of “Successions.” -But the express statements of Theophrastos are not -<span class='pageno' id='Page_34'>34</span>to be so lightly set aside. As this point is of great -importance, it will be necessary to elucidate it still -further before we enter upon our story.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The modern view really rests upon a mistaken idea -of the way in which civilisation develops. In almost -every department of life, we find that the corporation -at first is everything and the individual nothing. The -peoples of the East hardly got beyond this stage at -all; their science, such as it is, is anonymous, the -inherited property of a caste or guild, and we still see -clearly in some cases that it was once the same among -the Hellenes. Medicine, for instance, was originally the -“mystery” of the Asklepiads, and it is to be supposed -that all craftsmen (δημιουργοί), amongst whom Homer -classes the bards (ἀοιδοί), were at first organised in -a similar way. What distinguished the Hellenes from -other peoples was that at a comparatively early date -these crafts came under the influence of outstanding -individuals, who gave them a fresh direction and a new -impulse. It is doubtless in some such way that we -should understand the relation of Homer to the -Homeridai. The Asklepiads at a later date produced -Hippokrates, and if we knew more of such guilds as the -Daidalids, it is likely we should find something of the -same kind. But this does not destroy the corporate -character of the craft; indeed, it rather intensifies it. -The guild becomes what we call a “school,” and the -disciple takes the place of the apprentice. That is a -vital change. A close guild with none but official -heads is essentially conservative, while a band of -disciples attached to a master they revere is the -greatest progressive force the world knows.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is certain that the later Athenian schools were -<span class='pageno' id='Page_35'>35</span>organised corporations, the oldest of which, the -Academy, maintained its existence as such for some -nine hundred years, and the only question we have to -decide is whether this was an innovation made in the -fourth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, or rather the continuance of an old -tradition. As it happens, we have the authority of -Plato for speaking of the chief early systems as handed -down in schools. He makes Sokrates speak of “the -men of Ephesos,” the Herakleiteans, as forming a -strong body in his own day,<a id='r48' /><a href='#f48' class='c014'><sup>[48]</sup></a> and the stranger of the -<cite>Sophist</cite> and the <cite>Statesman</cite> speaks of his school -as still in existence at Elea.<a id='r49' /><a href='#f49' class='c014'><sup>[49]</sup></a> We also hear of -“Anaxagoreans,”<a id='r50' /><a href='#f50' class='c014'><sup>[50]</sup></a> and no one, of course, can doubt -that the Pythagoreans were a society. In fact, there -is hardly any school but that of Miletos for which we -have not external evidence of the strongest kind; and -even as regards it, we have the significant fact that -Theophrastos speaks of philosophers of a later date -as having been “associates of the philosophy of -Anaximenes.”<a id='r51' /><a href='#f51' class='c014'><sup>[51]</sup></a> We shall see too in the first chapter -that the internal evidence in favour of the existence of -a Milesian school is very strong indeed. It is from -this point of view, then, that we shall now proceed to -consider the men who created Hellenic science.</p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f1'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1'>1</a>. It will be observed that Demokritos falls outside the period thus -limited. The common practice of treating this younger contemporary of -Sokrates along with the “pre-Socratic philosophers” obscures the true -course of historical development. Demokritos comes after Protagoras, -and his theory is already conditioned by the epistemological problem. -(See Brochard, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">“Protagoras et Démocrite,”</span> <cite>Arch.</cite> ii. p. 368.) He has also a -regular theory of conduct (E. Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alterth.</cite></span> iv. § 514 n.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f2'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r2'>2</a>. See E. Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alterth.</cite></span> ii. § 64; Menzies, <cite>History of -Religion</cite>, pp. 272-276.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f3'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r3'>3</a>. On all this, see especially Rohde, <cite>Psyche</cite>, pp. 14 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f4'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r4'>4</a>. Hes. <cite>Theog.</cite> 27. They are the same Muses who inspired Homer, -which means, in our language, that Hesiod wrote in hexameters and used -the Epic dialect. The new literary <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>genre</i></span> has not yet found its appropriate -vehicle, which is elegy.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f5'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r5'>5</a>. There is great historical insight here. It was Hesiod, not our -modern historians, who first pointed out that the “Greek Middle Ages” -were a break in the normal development.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f6'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r6'>6</a>. Herod. ii. 53.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f7'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r7'>7</a>. The word χάος certainly means the “gape” or “yawn,” the Orphic -χάσμα πελώριον. Grimm compared it with the Scandinavian <cite>Ginnunga-Gap</cite>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f8'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r8'>8</a>. Quoted from Taylor’s <cite>New Zealand</cite>, pp. 110-112, by Mr. Andrew -Lang, in <cite>Myth, Ritual, and Religion</cite>, vol. ii. p. 52 (2nd ed.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f9'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r9'>9</a>. For the remains of Pherekydes, see Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vorsokratiker</cite></span>, pp. 506 -sqq. (1st ed.), and the interesting account in Gomperz, <cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, -vol. i. pp. 85 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f10'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r10'>10</a>. This was the view of Lobeck with regard to the so-called “Rhapsodic -Theogony” described by Damaskios, and was revived by Otto Kern (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>De -Orphei Epimenidis Pherecydis Theogoniis</cite></span>, 1888). Its savage character is -the best proof of its antiquity. Cf. Lang, <cite>Myth, Ritual, and Religion</cite>, -vol. i. chap. x.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f11'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r11'>11</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Ν, 4. 1091 b 8.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f12'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r12'>12</a>. Simonides, fr. 85, 2 Bergk. <cite>Il.</cite> vi. 146.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f13'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r13'>13</a>. On Adonis-Thammuz, Lityerses, Linos, and Osiris, see Frazer, <cite>Golden -Bough</cite>, vol. i. pp. 278 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f14'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r14'>14</a>. The Epic phrase ἀθάνατος καὶ ἀγήρως seems to have suggested this. -Anaximander applied both epithets to the primary substance (R. P. -17 and 17 a). Euripides, in describing the blessedness of the scientific life -(fr. inc. 910), says ἀθανάτου ... φύσεως κόσμον ἀγήρω (R. P. 148 c fin.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f15'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r15'>15</a>. I do not mean to imply that the philosophers used this title themselves; -for early prose writings had no titles. The writer mentioned his -name and the subject of his work in the first sentence, as Herodotos, for -instance, does.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f16'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r16'>16</a>. Plato, <cite>Laws</cite>, 892 c 2, φύσιν βούλονται λέγειν γένεσιν (<i>i.e.</i> τὸ ἐξ οὗ -γίγνεται) τὴν περὶ τὰ πρῶτα (<i>i.e.</i> τὴν τῶν πρώτων). Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Β, 1. -193 a 21, διόπερ οἱ μὲν πῦρ, οἱ δὲ γῆν, οἱ δ’ ἀέρα φασίν, οἱ δὲ ὗδωρ, οἱ δ’ -ἔνια τούτων, οἱ δὲ πάντα ταῦτα τὴν φύσιν εἶναι τὴν τῶν ὄντων.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f17'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r17'>17</a>. Zeller, p. 217, n. 2 (Eng. trans. p. 248, n. 2). See below, Chap. I. -p. 57, <a href='#f105'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 105</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f18'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r18'>18</a>. We have the authority of Plato for giving them this name. Cf. <cite>Phd.</cite> -96 a 7, ταύτης τῆς σοφίας ἣν δὴ καλοῦσι περὶ φύσεως ἱστορίαν. So, in the -fragment of Euripides referred to on p. 12, <a href='#f14'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 14</ins></a>, the man who discerns -“the ageless order of immortal φύσις” is referred to as ὅστις τῆς ἱστορίας -ἔσχε μάθησιν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f19'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r19'>19</a>. Herod. i. 163.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f20'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r20'>20</a>. All he can say is that the worship of Dionysos and the doctrine of -transmigration came from Egypt (ii. 49, 123). We shall see that both these -statements are incorrect, and in any case they do not imply anything -directly as to philosophy.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f21'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r21'>21</a>. In <cite>Rep.</cite> 435 e, after saying that τὸ θυμοειδές is characteristic of the -Thracians and Scythians, and τὸ φιλομαθές of the Hellenes, he refers us to -Phoenicia and Egypt for τὸ φιλοχρήματον. In the <cite>Laws</cite>, where the Egyptians -are so strongly commended for their conservatism in matters of art, he says -(747 b 6) that arithmetical studies are valuable only if we remove all ἀνελευθερία -and φιλοχρηματία from the souls of the learners. Otherwise, we produce -πανουργία instead of σοφία, as we can see that the Phoenicians, the Egyptians, -and many other peoples do.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f22'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r22'>22</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 1. 981 b 23.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f23'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r23'>23</a>. See Zeller, p. 3, n. 2. Philo applies the term πάτριος φιλοσοφία to the -theology of the Essenes and Therapeutai.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f24'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r24'>24</a>. On this, see Lang, <cite>Myth, Ritual, and Religion</cite>, vol. ii. p. 135.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f25'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r25'>25</a>. Noumenios, fr. 13 (R. P. 624), Τί γάρ ἐστι Πλάτων ἢ Μωυσῆς ἀττικίζων;</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f26'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r26'>26</a>. Clement (<cite>Strom.</cite> i. p. 8, 5, Stählin) calls Plato ὁ ἐξ Ἑβραίων -φιλόσοφος.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f27'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r27'>27</a>. We learn from Strabo (xvi. p. 757) that it was Poseidonios who -introduced Mochos of Sidon into the history of philosophy. He attributes -the atomic theory to him. His identification with Moses, however, is a -later <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>tour de force</i></span>. Philon of Byblos published what purported to be a -translation of an ancient Phoenician history by Sanchuniathon, which was -used by Porphyry and afterwards by Eusebios. How familiar all this -became, is shown by the speech of the stranger in the <cite>Vicar of Wakefield</cite>, -chap. xiv.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f28'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r28'>28</a>. Herod. ii. 143; Plato, <cite>Tim.</cite> 22 b 3.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f29'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r29'>29</a>. Gomperz’s “native bride,” who discusses the wisdom of her people -with her Greek lord (<cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, vol. i. p. 95), does not convince me -either. She would probably teach her maids the rites of strange goddesses; -but she would not be likely to talk theology with her husband, and still -less philosophy or science. The use of Babylonian as an international -language will account for the fact that the Egyptians knew something of -Babylonian astronomy; but it does not help us to explain how the Greeks -could communicate with the Egyptians. It is plain that the Greeks did -not even know of this international language; for it is just the sort of -thing they would have recorded with interest if they had. In early days, -they may have met with it in Cyprus, but that was apparently forgotten.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f30'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r30'>30</a>. For the possibility that Indian philosophy came from Greece, see -Weber, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Die Griechen in Indien</cite></span> (Berl. Sitzb. 1890, pp. 901 sqq.), and -Goblet d’Alviella, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Ce que l’Inde doit à la Grèce</cite></span> (Paris, 1897).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f31'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r31'>31</a>. I am indebted for most of the information which follows to Cantor’s -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vorlesungen über Geschichte der Mathematik</cite></span>, vol. i. pp. 46-63. See also -Gow’s <cite>Short History of Greek Mathematics</cite>, §§ 73-80; and Milhaud, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>La -science grecque</cite></span>, pp. 91 sqq. The discussion in the last-named work is of -special value because it is based on M. Rodet’s paper in the <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Bulletin de la -Société Mathématique</cite></span>, vol. vi., which in some important respects supplements -the interpretation of Eisenlohr, on which the earlier accounts depend.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f32'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r32'>32</a>. Plato, <cite>Laws</cite>, 819 b 4, μήλων τέ τινων διανομαὶ καὶ στεφάνων πλείοσιν -ἄμα καὶ ἐλάττοσιν ἁρμοττόντων ἀριθμῶν τῶν αὐτῶν, καὶ πυκτῶν καὶ -παλαιστῶν ἐφεδρείας τε καὶ συλλήξεως ἐν μέρει καὶ ἐφεξῆς καὶ ὡς πεφύκασι -γίγνεσθαι. καὶ δὴ καὶ παίζοντες, φιάλας ἅμα χρυσοῦ καὶ χαλκοῦ καὶ ἀργύρου -καὶ τοιούτων τινῶν ἄλλων κεραννύντες, οἱ δὲ καὶ ὅλας πως διαδιδόντες. In its -context, the passage implies that no more than this could be learnt in Egypt.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f33'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r33'>33</a>. Herod. ii. 109; Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 1. 981 b 23.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f34'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r34'>34</a>. For a fuller account of this method, see Gow, <cite>Short History of Greek -Mathematics</cite>, pp. 127 sqq.; and Milhaud, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Science grecque</cite></span>, p. 99.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f35'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r35'>35</a>. R. P. 188.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f36'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r36'>36</a>. The real meaning of ἁρπεδονάπτης was first pointed out by Cantor. -The gardener laying out a flower-bed is the true modern representative of -the “harpedonapts.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f37'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r37'>37</a>. See Milhaud, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Science grecque</cite></span>, p. 103.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f38'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r38'>38</a>. The word πυραμίς is often supposed to be derived from the term -<em>piremus</em> used in the Rhind papyrus, which does not mean pyramid, but -“ridge.” It is really, however, a Greek word too, and is the name of a kind -of cake. The Greeks called crocodiles lizards, ostriches sparrows, and -obelisks meat-skewers, so they may very well have called the pyramids -cakes. We seem to hear an echo of the slang of the mercenaries that -carved their names on the colossus at Abu-Simbel.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f39'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r39'>39</a>. Three different positions of the equinox are given in three different -Babylonian tablets, namely, 10°, 8° 15′, and 8° 0′ 30″ of Aries. (Kugler, -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Mondrechnung</cite></span>, p. 103; Ginzel, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Klio</cite></span>, i. p. 205.) Given knowledge of this -kind, and the practice of formulating recurrences in cycles, it is scarcely -conceivable that the Babylonians should not have invented a cycle for -precession. It is equally intelligible that they should only have reached a -rough approximation; for the precessional period is really about 27,600 years -and not 36,000. It is to be observed that Plato’s “perfect year” is also -36,000 solar years (Adam’s <cite>Republic</cite>, vol. ii. p. 302), and that it is probably -connected with the precession of the equinoxes. (Cf. <cite>Tim.</cite> 39 d, a passage -which is most easily interpreted if referred to precession.) This suggestion -as to the origin of the “Great Year” was thrown out by Mr. Adam (<i>op. cit.</i> -p. 305), and is now confirmed by Hilprecht, <cite>The Babylonian Expedition of -the University of Pennsylvania</cite> (Philadelphia, 1906).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f40'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r40'>40</a>. In classical Greek literature, no planets but Ἕσπερος and Ἑωσφόρος are -mentioned by name at all. Parmenides (or Pythagoras) first identified these -as a single planet (<a href='#sec93'>§ 93</a>). Mercury appears for the first time by name in -<cite>Tim.</cite> 38 e, and the other divine names are given in <cite>Epin.</cite> 987 b sq., where -they are said to be “Syrian.” The Greek names Φαίνων, Φαέθων, Πυρόεις, -Φωσφόρος, Στίλβων, may be older, but this cannot be proved.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f41'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r41'>41</a>. The Platonic account of this matter is to be found in the <cite>Epinomis</cite>, -986 e 9 sqq., and is summed up by the words λάβωμεν δὲ ὡς ὅτιπερ ἂν -Ἕλληνες βαρβάρων παραλάβωσι, κάλλιον τοῦτο εἰς τέλος ἀπεργάζονται (987 d 9). -The point is well put by Theon (Adrastos), <cite>Exp.</cite> p. 177, 20 Hiller, who -speaks of the Chaldaeans and Egyptians as ἄνευ φυσιολογίας ἀτελεῖς -ποιούμενοι τὰς μεθόδους, δέον ἅμα καὶ φυσικῶς περὶ τούτων ἐπισκοπεῖν· -ὅπερ οἱ παρὰ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ἀστρολογήσαντες ἐπειρῶντο ποιεῖν, τὰς παρὰ -τούτων λαβόντες ἀρχὰς καὶ τῶν φαινομένων τηρήσεις. The importance of -this last passage is that it represents the view taken at Alexandria, where -the facts were accurately known.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f42'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r42'>42</a>. Still, the word θεωρία never wholly lost its early associations, and the -Greeks always felt that the θεωρητικὸς βίος meant literally “the life of the -spectator.” Its special use, and the whole theory of the “three lives,” -seem to be of Pythagorean origin. See my edition of Aristotle’s <cite>Ethics</cite>, -p. 19 n.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f43'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r43'>43</a>. These two points are rightly emphasised by Staigmüller, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Beiträge zur -Gesch. der Naturwissenschaften im klassischen Altertume</cite></span> (Progr. Stuttgart, -1899, p. 8).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f44'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r44'>44</a>. The gnomon was not a sundial, but an upright erected on a flat surface, -in the centre of three concentric circles. These were drawn so that the -end of the gnomon’s shadow touched the innermost circle at midday on the -summer solstice, the intermediate circle at the equinoxes, and the outermost -circle at the winter solstice. See Bretschneider, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Die Geometrie -vor Euklid</cite></span>, p. 60.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f45'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r45'>45</a>. The term κόσμος seems to be Pythagorean in this sense. It was not -familiar even at the beginning of the fourth century. Xenophon speaks of -“what the sophists call the κόσμος” (Mem. i. 11). For δίκη, see below, -§§ 14, 72.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f46'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r46'>46</a>. This phrase originated in the school of Plato. The method of research -in use there was for the leader to “propound” (προτείνειν, προβάλλεσθαι) -it as a “problem” (πρόβλημα) to find the simplest “hypothesis” (τίνων -ὑποτεθέντων) on which it is possible to account for and do justice to all the -observed facts (σῴζειν τὰ φαινόμενα). It was in its French form, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>sauver les -apparences</i></span>, that the phrase acquired the meaning it usually has now.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f47'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r47'>47</a>. See Appendix, <a href='#app1.7'>§ 7</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f48'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r48'>48</a>. <cite>Tht.</cite> 179 e 4, αὐτοῖς ... τοῖς περὶ τὴν Ἔφεσον. The humorous denial -that the Herakleiteans had any disciples (180 b 8, Ποίοις μαθηταῖς, ὦ -δαιμόνιε;) implies that this was the normal and recognised relation.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f49'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r49'>49</a>. <cite>Soph.</cite> 242 d 4, τὸ ... παρ’ ἡμῖν Ἐλεατικὸν ἔθνος. Cf. ib. 216 a 3, -ἑταῖρον δὲ τῶν ἀμφὶ Παρμενίδην καὶ Ζήνωνα [ἑταίρων] (where ἑταίρων is -probably interpolated, but gives the right sense); 217 a, 1, οἱ περὶ τὸν ἐκεῖ -τόπον.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f50'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r50'>50</a>. <cite>Crat.</cite> 409 b 6, εἴπερ ἀληθῆ οἱ Ἀναξαγόρειοι λέγουσιν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f51'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r51'>51</a>. Cf. Chap. VI. <a href='#sec122'>§ 122</a>; and, on the whole subject, see Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Über -die ältesten Philosophenschulen der Griechen”</span> in <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Philosophische Aufsätze -Eduard Zeller gewidmet</cite></span> (Leipzig, 1887).</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_37'>37</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER I <br /> THE MILESIAN SCHOOL</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Miletos and Lydia.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec1'></a>1. It was at Miletos that the earliest school of -scientific cosmology had its home. At the time it arose, -the Milesians were in an exceptionally favourable -position for scientific as well as commercial pursuits. -They had, indeed, come into conflict more than once -with the neighbouring Lydians, whose rulers were now -bent upon extending their dominion to the coast; but, -towards the end of the seventh century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, Thrasyboulos, -tyrant of Miletos, had succeeded in making terms -with King Alyattes, and an alliance was concluded -between them, which not only saved Miletos for the -present from a disaster like that which befell Smyrna, -but secured it against molestation for the future. -Even half a century later, when Croesus, resuming his -father’s forward policy, made war upon and conquered -Ephesos, Miletos was still able to maintain the old -treaty-relation, and never, strictly speaking, became -subject to the Lydians at all. We can hardly doubt -that the sense of security which this exceptional position -would foster had something to do with the rise of -scientific inquiry. Material prosperity is necessary as a -foundation for the highest intellectual effort; and at this -<span class='pageno' id='Page_38'>38</span>time Miletos was in possession of all the refinements of -life to a degree unknown in continental Hellas.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Nor was it only in this way that the Lydian -connexion would favour the growth of science at -Miletos. What was called Hellenism at a later date -seems to have been traditional in the dynasty of the -Mermnadai. There may well be some truth in the -statement of Herodotos, that all the “sophists” of the -time flocked to the court of Sardeis.<a id='r52' /><a href='#f52' class='c014'><sup>[52]</sup></a> The tradition -which represents Croesus as what we should call the -“patron” of Greek wisdom, was fully developed in the -fifth century; and, however unhistorical its details may -be, it must clearly have some sort of foundation in -fact. Particularly noteworthy is “the common tale -among the Greeks,” that Thales accompanied him on -his luckless campaign against Pteria, apparently in the -capacity of military engineer. Herodotos, indeed, -disbelieves the story that he diverted the course of -the Halys;<a id='r53' /><a href='#f53' class='c014'><sup>[53]</sup></a> but he does not attack it on the ground -of any antecedent improbability, and it is quite clear -that those who reported it found no difficulty in accepting -the relation which it presupposes between the -philosopher and the king.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_39'>39</span>It should be added that the Lydian alliance would -greatly facilitate intercourse with Babylon and Egypt. -Lydia was an advanced post of Babylonian culture, -and Croesus was on friendly terms with the kings of -both Egypt and Babylon. It is noteworthy, too, that -Amasis of Egypt had the same Hellenic sympathies as -Croesus, and that the Milesians possessed a temple of -their own at Naukratis.<a id='r54' /><a href='#f54' class='c014'><sup>[54]</sup></a></p> - -<h3 class='c018'>I. <span class='sc'>Thales</span></h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Origin.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec2'></a>2. There can be no doubt that the founder of the -Milesian school, and therefore the first of the cosmologists, -was Thales;<a id='r55' /><a href='#f55' class='c014'><sup>[55]</sup></a> but all we can really be said to -know of him comes from Herodotos, and the romance -of the Seven Wise Men was already in existence when -he wrote. He tells us, in the first place, that Thales -was of Phoenician descent, a statement which other -writers explained by saying he belonged to the Thelidai, -a noble house descended from Kadmos and Agenor.<a id='r56' /><a href='#f56' class='c014'><sup>[56]</sup></a> -This is clearly connected with the view of Herodotos -that there were “Kadmeians” from Boiotia among the -original Ionian colonists, and it is certain that there -really were people called Kadmeians in several Ionic -cities.<a id='r57' /><a href='#f57' class='c014'><sup>[57]</sup></a> Whether they were of Semitic origin is, of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_40'>40</span>course, another matter. Herodotos probably mentions -the supposed descent of Thales simply because he was -believed to have introduced certain improvements in -navigation from Phoenicia.<a id='r58' /><a href='#f58' class='c014'><sup>[58]</sup></a> At any rate, the name -Examyes, which his father bore, lends no support to -the view that he was a Semite. It is a Karian name, -and the Karians had been almost completely assimilated -by the Ionians. On the monuments, we find Greek -and Karian names alternating in the same families, and -there is therefore no reason to suppose that Thales was -anything else than an ordinary Milesian citizen, though -perhaps with Karian blood in his veins.<a id='r59' /><a href='#f59' class='c014'><sup>[59]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The eclipse foretold by Thales.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec3'></a>3. By far the most remarkable statement that -Herodotos makes about Thales is that he foretold the -eclipse of the sun which put an end to the war between -the Lydians and the Medes.<a id='r60' /><a href='#f60' class='c014'><sup>[60]</sup></a> Now, we may be sure -that he was quite ignorant of the true cause of eclipses. -Anaximander and his successors certainly were so,<a id='r61' /><a href='#f61' class='c014'><sup>[61]</sup></a> and -it is incredible that the right explanation should once -have been given and then forgotten so soon. Even -supposing, however, Thales had known the cause of -eclipses, no one can believe that such scraps of -elementary geometry as he picked up in Egypt would -enable him to calculate one from the elements of the -moon’s path. Yet the evidence for the prediction is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_41'>41</span>too strong to be rejected off-hand. The testimony of -Herodotos to an event which must have happened -about a hundred years before his own birth may, -perhaps, be deemed insufficient; but that of Xenophanes -is a very different matter, and it is this we -have really to deal with.<a id='r62' /><a href='#f62' class='c014'><sup>[62]</sup></a> According to Theophrastos, -Xenophanes was a disciple of Anaximander, and he -may quite well have seen and spoken with Thales. In -any case, he must have known scores of people who -were able to remember what happened, and he had no -conceivable interest in misrepresenting it. The prediction -of the eclipse is really better attested than any -other fact about Thales whatsoever, and the evidence -for it is about as strong as for anything that happened -in the early part of the sixth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span></p> - -<p class='c002'>Now it is quite possible to predict eclipses without -knowing their true cause, and there is no doubt that -the Babylonians actually did so. On the basis of their -astronomical observations, they had made out a cycle -of 223 lunar months, within which eclipses of the sun -and moon recurred at equal intervals of time.<a id='r63' /><a href='#f63' class='c014'><sup>[63]</sup></a> This, -it is true, would not enable them to predict eclipses of -the sun for a given spot on the earth’s surface; for -these phenomena are not visible at all places where the -sun is above the horizon at the time. We do not -occupy a position at the centre of the earth, and what -astronomers call the geocentric parallax has to be -<span class='pageno' id='Page_42'>42</span>taken into account. It would only, therefore, be -possible to tell by means of the cycle that an eclipse -of the sun would be visible somewhere, and that it -might be worth while to look out for it. Now, if we -may judge from a report by a Chaldaean astronomer -which has been preserved, this was just the position of -the Babylonians. They watched for eclipses at the -proper dates; and, if they did not occur, they announced -the fact as a good omen.<a id='r64' /><a href='#f64' class='c014'><sup>[64]</sup></a> To explain what we are -told about Thales no more than this is required. He -simply said there would be an eclipse; and, as good -luck would have it, it was visible in Asia Minor, and on -a striking occasion.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Date of Thales.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec4'></a>4. The prediction of the eclipse does not, then, throw -much light upon the scientific attainments of Thales; -but, if we can fix its date, it will give us a point from -which to start in trying to determine the time at which -he lived. Modern astronomers have calculated that -there was an eclipse of the sun, probably visible in -Asia Minor, on May 28 (O.S.), 585 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>,<a id='r65' /><a href='#f65' class='c014'><sup>[65]</sup></a> while Pliny -gives the date of the eclipse foretold by Thales as Ol. -XLVIII. 4 (585/4 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>).<a id='r66' /><a href='#f66' class='c014'><sup>[66]</sup></a> This, it is true, does not -<span class='pageno' id='Page_43'>43</span>exactly tally; for May 585 belongs to the year 586/5 -<span class='fss'>B.C.</span> It is sufficiently near, however, to justify us in -identifying the eclipse as that of Thales, and this is -confirmed by Apollodoros, who fixed his <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span> in the -same year.<a id='r67' /><a href='#f67' class='c014'><sup>[67]</sup></a> The further statement that, according to -Demetrios Phalereus, Thales “received the name of -wise” in the archonship of Damasias at Athens, agrees -very well with this, and is doubtless based on the story -of the Delphic tripod; for the archonship of Damasias -is the era of the restoration of the Pythian Games.<a id='r68' /><a href='#f68' class='c014'><sup>[68]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Thales in Egypt.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec5'></a>5. The introduction of Egyptian geometry into -Hellas is universally ascribed to Thales, and it is -extremely probable that he did visit Egypt; for he -had a theory of the inundations of the Nile. In a -well-known passage,<a id='r69' /><a href='#f69' class='c014'><sup>[69]</sup></a> Herodotos gives three explanations -<span class='pageno' id='Page_44'>44</span>of the fact that this alone of all rivers rises in -summer and falls in winter; but, as his custom is in -such cases, he does not name their authors. The first -of them, however, that which attributes the floods to -the Etesian winds, is ascribed to Thales in the <cite>Placita</cite>,<a id='r70' /><a href='#f70' class='c014'><sup>[70]</sup></a> -and also by many later writers. Now, those statements -are derived from a treatise on the Rise of the Nile -attributed to Aristotle and known to the Greek -commentators, but now extant only in a Latin epitome -of the thirteenth century.<a id='r71' /><a href='#f71' class='c014'><sup>[71]</sup></a> In this work the first of -the three theories mentioned by Herodotos is ascribed -to Thales, the second to Euthymenes of Massalia, and -the third to Anaxagoras. Where did Aristotle, or -whoever wrote the book, get these names? We think -naturally once more of Hekataios, whom Herodotos so -often reproduces without mentioning his name; and -this conjecture is much strengthened when we find that -Hekataios actually mentioned Euthymenes.<a id='r72' /><a href='#f72' class='c014'><sup>[72]</sup></a> We may -conclude, then, that Thales really was in Egypt; and, -perhaps, that Hekataios, in describing the Nile, took -account, as was only natural, of his distinguished -fellow-citizen’s views.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Thales and geometry.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec6'></a>6. As to the nature and extent of the mathematical -knowledge brought back by Thales from Egypt, it -seems desirable to point out that many writers have -seriously misunderstood the character of the tradition.<a id='r73' /><a href='#f73' class='c014'><sup>[73]</sup></a> -In his commentary on the First Book of Euclid, -Proclus enumerates, on the authority of Eudemos, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_45'>45</span>certain propositions which he says were known to -Thales.<a id='r74' /><a href='#f74' class='c014'><sup>[74]</sup></a> One of the theorems with which he credits -him is that two triangles are equal when they have one -side and the two adjacent angles equal. This he must -have known, said Eudemos, as otherwise he could not -have measured the distances of ships at sea from a -watch-tower in the way he was said to have done.<a id='r75' /><a href='#f75' class='c014'><sup>[75]</sup></a> -Here we see how all these statements arose. Certain -remarkable feats in the way of measurement were -traditionally ascribed to Thales, and it was assumed -that he must have known all the propositions which -these imply. But this is quite an illusory method of -inference. Both the measurement of the distance of -ships at sea, and that of the height of the pyramids, -which is also ascribed to him,<a id='r76' /><a href='#f76' class='c014'><sup>[76]</sup></a> are easy applications of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_46'>46</span>what Aahmes calls the <em>seqt</em>. These rules of mensuration -may well have been brought from Egypt by -Thales, but we have no ground for supposing that he -knew any more about their <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>rationale</i></span> than did the -author of the Rhind papyrus. Perhaps, indeed, he -gave them a wider application than the Egyptians had -done. Still, mathematics, properly so called, did not -come into existence till some time after Thales.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Thales as a politician.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec7'></a>7. Thales appears once more in the pages of -Herodotos some time before the fall of the Lydian -empire. He is said to have urged the Ionian Greeks -to unite in a federal state with its capital at Teos.<a id='r77' /><a href='#f77' class='c014'><sup>[77]</sup></a> -We shall have occasion to notice more than once in -the sequel that the early schools of philosophy were -in the habit of trying to influence the course of -political events; and there are many things, for -instance the part played by Hekataios in the Ionian -revolt, which point to the conclusion that the scientific -men of Miletos took up a very decided position in -the stirring times that followed the death of Thales. -It is this political action which has gained the founder -of the Milesian school his undisputed place among the -Seven Wise Men; and it is owing mainly to his -inclusion among those worthies that the numerous -anecdotes which were told of him in later days attached -themselves to his name.<a id='r78' /><a href='#f78' class='c014'><sup>[78]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Uncertain character of the tradition.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec8'></a>8. If Thales ever wrote anything, it soon was lost, -and the works which were written in his name did -not, as a rule, deceive even the ancients.<a id='r79' /><a href='#f79' class='c014'><sup>[79]</sup></a> Aristotle -<span class='pageno' id='Page_47'>47</span>professes to know something about the views of Thales; -but he does not pretend to know how they were arrived -at, nor the arguments by which they were supported. -He does, indeed, make certain suggestions, which are -repeated by later writers as statements of fact; but he -himself simply gives them for what they are worth.<a id='r80' /><a href='#f80' class='c014'><sup>[80]</sup></a> -There is another difficulty in connexion with the -tradition. Many a precise-looking statement in the -<cite>Placita</cite> has no other foundation than the habit of -ascribing any doctrine which was, roughly speaking, -characteristic of the whole Ionic “Succession” to -“Thales and his followers,” and so producing the -appearance of a definite statement about Thales. But, -in spite of all this, we need not doubt that Aristotle -was correctly informed with regard to the leading -points. We have seen traces of reference to Thales in -Hekataios, and nothing can be more likely than that -later writers of the school should have quoted the -views of its founder. We may venture, therefore, upon -a conjectural restoration of his cosmology, in which we -shall be guided by what we know for certain of the -subsequent development of the Milesian school; for -we should naturally expect to find its characteristic -doctrines at least foreshadowed in the teaching of its -earliest representative. But all this must be taken for -just what it is worth; speaking strictly, we do not -know anything about the teaching of Thales at all.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Conjectural account of the cosmology of Thales.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec9'></a>9. The statements of Aristotle may be reduced to -three:</p> - -<div class='quote'> - - <ul class='ul_1'> - <li>(1) The earth floats on the water.<a id='r81' /><a href='#f81' - class='c014'><sup>[81]</sup></a> - - </li> - <li><span class='pageno' id='Page_48'>48</span>(2) Water is the material cause<a id='r82' /><a href='#f82' - class='c014'><sup>[82]</sup></a> of all things. - - </li> - <li>(3) All things are full of gods. The magnet is alive; for it has the power of moving - iron.<a id='r83' /><a href='#f83' class='c014'><sup>[83]</sup></a> - </li> - </ul> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The first of these statements must be understood in -the light of the second, which is expressed in Aristotelian -terminology, but would undoubtedly mean that Thales -had said water was the fundamental or primary thing, -of which all other things were mere transient forms. -It was, we shall see, just such a primary substance -that the Milesian school as a whole was seeking, and -it is unlikely that the earliest answer to the great -question of the day should have been the comparatively -subtle one given by Anaximander. We are, perhaps, -justified in holding that the greatness of Thales consisted -in this, that he was the first to ask, not what -<em>was</em> the original thing, but what <em>is</em> the primary thing -now; or, more simply still, “What is the world made -of?” The answer he gave to this question was: <em>Water</em>.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Water.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec10'></a>10. Aristotle and Theophratos, followed by Simplicius -and the doxographers, suggest several explanations -of this answer. By Aristotle these explanations -are given as conjectural; it is only later writers that -repeat them as if they were quite certain.<a id='r84' /><a href='#f84' class='c014'><sup>[84]</sup></a> The most -<span class='pageno' id='Page_49'>49</span>probable view of them seems to be that Aristotle simply -ascribed to Thales the arguments used at a later date -by Hippon of Samos in support of a similar thesis.<a id='r85' /><a href='#f85' class='c014'><sup>[85]</sup></a> -This would account for their physiological character. -The rise of scientific medicine had made biological -arguments very popular in the fifth century; but, in the -days of Thales, the prevailing interest was not physiological, -but rather what we should call meteorological, -and it is therefore from this point of view we must try -to understand the theory.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Now it is not very hard to see how considerations of -a meteorological kind may have led Thales to adopt -the view he did. Of all the things we know, water -seems to take the most various shapes. It is familiar -to us in a solid, a liquid, and a vaporous form, and so -Thales may well have thought that he saw the world-process -from water and back to water again going on -before his very eyes. The phenomenon of evaporation -naturally suggests everywhere that the fire of the -heavenly bodies is kept up by the moisture which they -draw from the sea. Even at the present day, the -country people speak of the appearance of sunbeams as -“the sun drawing water.” Water comes down again in -the rain; and lastly, so the early cosmologists thought, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_50'>50</span>it turns to earth. This seems strange to us, but it may -have seemed natural enough to men who were familiar -with the river of Egypt which had formed the Delta, -and with the torrents of Asia Minor, which bring down -unusually large alluvial deposits. At the present day -the Gulf of Latmos, on which Miletos used to stand, is -completely filled up. Lastly, they thought, earth turns -once more to water—an idea derived from the observation -of dew, night-mists, and subterranean springs. -For these last were not in early times supposed -to have anything at all to do with the rain. The -“waters under the earth” were regarded as an entirely -independent source of moisture.<a id='r86' /><a href='#f86' class='c014'><sup>[86]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Theology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec11'></a>11. The third of the statements mentioned above -is supposed by Aristotle himself to imply that Thales -believed in a “soul of the world,” though he is careful -to mark this as no more than an inference.<a id='r87' /><a href='#f87' class='c014'><sup>[87]</sup></a> The -doctrine of the world-soul is then attributed quite -positively to Thales by Aetios, who gives it in the -Stoic phraseology which he found in his immediate -source, and identifies the world-intellect with God.<a id='r88' /><a href='#f88' class='c014'><sup>[88]</sup></a> -Cicero found a similar account of the matter in the -Epicurean manual which he followed, but he goes a -step further. Eliminating the Stoic pantheism, he -turns the world-intellect into a Platonic <em>demiourgos</em>, and -says that Thales held there was a divine mind which -formed all things out of water.<a id='r89' /><a href='#f89' class='c014'><sup>[89]</sup></a> All this is derived -<span class='pageno' id='Page_51'>51</span>from the cautious statement of Aristotle, and can have -no greater authority than its source. We need not enter, -then, upon the old controversy whether Thales was an -atheist or not. It is really irrelevant. If we may -judge from his successors, he may very possibly have -called water divine; but, if he had any religious beliefs -at all, we may be sure they were quite unconnected -with his cosmological theory.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Nor must we make too much of the saying itself -that “all things are full of gods.” It is often supposed -to mean that Thales attributed a “plastic life” to -matter, or that he was a “hylozoist.” We have seen -already how misleading this way of speaking is apt to -be,<a id='r90' /><a href='#f90' class='c014'><sup>[90]</sup></a> and we shall do well to avoid it. It is not safe to -regard such an apophthegm as evidence for anything; -the chances are that it belongs to Thales as one of the -Seven Wise Men, rather than as founder of the -Milesian school. Further, such sayings are, as a rule, -anonymous to begin with, and are attributed now to -one sage and now to another.<a id='r91' /><a href='#f91' class='c014'><sup>[91]</sup></a> On the other hand, it -is extremely probable that Thales did say that the -magnet and amber had souls. That is no apophthegm, -but something more on the level of the statement that -the earth floats on the water. It is, in fact, just the -sort of thing we should expect Hekataios to record -about Thales. It would be wrong, however, to draw -any inferences from it as to his view of the world; for -<span class='pageno' id='Page_52'>52</span>to say that the magnet and amber are alive is to imply, -if anything, that other things are not.<a id='r92' /><a href='#f92' class='c014'><sup>[92]</sup></a></p> - -<h3 class='c018'>II. <span class='sc'>Anaximander</span></h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Life.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec12'></a>12. The next name that has come down to us is -that of Anaximander, son of Praxiades. He too was -a citizen of Miletos, and Theophrastos described him -as an “associate” of Thales.<a id='r93' /><a href='#f93' class='c014'><sup>[93]</sup></a> We have seen how that -expression is to be understood (§ XIV.).</p> - -<p class='c002'>According to Apollodoros, Anaximander was sixty-four -years old in Ol. LVIII. 2 (547/6 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>); and this -is confirmed by Hippolytos, who says he was born in -Ol. XLII. 3 (610/9 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>), and by Pliny, who assigns -his discovery of the obliquity of the zodiac to the same -Olympiad.<a id='r94' /><a href='#f94' class='c014'><sup>[94]</sup></a> We seem to have here something more -than a mere combination of the ordinary type; for, -according to all the rules of Alexandrian chronology, -Anaximander should have “flourished” in 565 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, -that is, just half-way between Thales and Anaximenes, -and this would make him sixty, not sixty-four, in 546. -Now Apollodoros appears to have said that he had -met with the work of Anaximander; and his reason -for mentioning this must be that he found in it some -indication which enabled him to fix its date without -having recourse to conjecture. Diels suggests that -Anaximander may have given his age at the time -of writing as sixty-four, and that the book may have -<span class='pageno' id='Page_53'>53</span>contained some other statement showing it to have -been published in 547/6 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span><a id='r95' /><a href='#f95' class='c014'><sup>[95]</sup></a> Perhaps, however, this -hardly does justice to the fact that the year given is -just that which preceded the fall of Sardeis and the -subjugation of the Lydian empire by the Persians. It -may be a more plausible conjecture that Anaximander, -writing some years later, incidentally mentioned what -his age had been at the time of that great crisis. We -know from Xenophanes that the question, “How old -were you when the Mede appeared?” was considered -an interesting one in those days.<a id='r96' /><a href='#f96' class='c014'><sup>[96]</sup></a> At all events, we -seem to be justified in believing that Anaximander was -a generation younger than Thales. When he died we -do not really know.<a id='r97' /><a href='#f97' class='c014'><sup>[97]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Like his predecessor, Anaximander distinguished -himself by certain practical inventions. Some writers -credited him with that of the <em>gnomon</em>; but that can -hardly be correct. Herodotos tells us this instrument -came from Babylon, so perhaps it was Anaximander -who made it known among the Greeks. He was also -the first to construct a map, and Eratosthenes said this -was the map elaborated by Hekataios.<a id='r98' /><a href='#f98' class='c014'><sup>[98]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Theophrastos on Anaximander’s theory of the primary substance.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_54'>54</span><a id='sec13'></a>13. Nearly all we know of Anaximander’s system -is derived in the last resort from Theophrastos.<a id='r99' /><a href='#f99' class='c014'><sup>[99]</sup></a> As -to the credibility of what we are told on his authority, -it is enough to remark that the original work, which -was in the hands of Apollodoros, must certainly have -existed in the time of Theophrastos. Moreover, he -seems once at least to have quoted Anaximander’s own -words, and he criticised his style. Here are the -remains of what he said of him in the First Book:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Anaximander of Miletos, son of Praxiades, a fellow-citizen -and associate of Thales,<a id='r100' /><a href='#f100' class='c014'><sup>[100]</sup></a> said that the material cause and first -element of things was the Infinite, he being the first to introduce -this name for the material cause. He says it is neither -water nor any other of the so-called<a id='r101' /><a href='#f101' class='c014'><sup>[101]</sup></a> elements, but a substance -different from them which is infinite, from which arise all the -heavens and the worlds within them.—<cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 2 (<cite>Dox.</cite> -p. 476; R. P. 16).</p> - -<p class='c002'>He says that this is eternal and ageless, and that it encompasses -all the worlds.—Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 6 (R. P. 17 a).</p> - -<p class='c002'>And into that from which things take their rise they pass -away once more, “as is ordained; for they make reparation -and satisfaction to one another for their injustice according -to the appointed time,” as he says<a id='r102' /><a href='#f102' class='c014'><sup>[102]</sup></a> in these somewhat poetical -terms.—<cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 2 (R. P. 16).</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_55'>55</span>And besides this, there was an eternal motion, in the course -of which was brought about the origin of the worlds.—Hipp. -<cite>Ref.</cite> i. 6 (R. P. 17 a).</p> - -<p class='c002'>He did not ascribe the origin of things to any alteration in -matter, but said that the oppositions in the substratum, which -was a boundless body, were separated out.—Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. -150, 20 (R. P. 18).</p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>The primary substance is not one of the “elements.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec14'></a>14. Anaximander taught, then, that there was one -eternal, indestructible substance out of which everything -arises, and into which everything once more returns; -a boundless stock from which the waste of existence is -continually being made good. This is only the natural -development of the thought we have ventured to -ascribe to Thales, and there can be no doubt that -Anaximander at least distinctly formulated it. Indeed, -we can still follow to some extent the reasoning which -led him to do so. Thales had regarded water as the -most likely of all the things we know to be that of -which all others are forms; Anaximander appears to -have asked himself how the primary substance could -be one of these particular things. His argument seems -to be preserved by Aristotle, who has the following -passage in his discussion of the Infinite:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Further, there cannot be a single, simple body which is -infinite, either, as some hold, one distinct from the elements, -which they then derive from it, nor without this qualification. -For there are some who make this (<i>i.e.</i> a body distinct from -the elements) the infinite, and not air or water, in order that -the other things may not be destroyed by their infinity. <em>They -are in opposition one to another</em>—air is cold, water moist, and -fire hot—and therefore, <em>if any one of them were infinite, the -rest would have ceased to be by this time</em>. Accordingly they -<span class='pageno' id='Page_56'>56</span>say that what is infinite is something other than the elements, -and from it the elements arise.—Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 5. 204 b 22 -(R. P. 16 b).</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It is clear that in this passage Anaximander is contrasted -with Thales and with Anaximenes. Nor is there -any reason to doubt that the account given of his -reasoning is substantially correct, though the form is -Aristotle’s own, and the mention of “elements” is an -anachronism.<a id='r103' /><a href='#f103' class='c014'><sup>[103]</sup></a> Anaximander was struck, it would -seem, by the opposition and strife between the things -which go to make up the world; the warm fire was -opposed to the cold air, the dry earth to the moist sea. -These opposites were at war, and any predominance of -one over the other was an “injustice” for which they -must make reparation to one another.<a id='r104' /><a href='#f104' class='c014'><sup>[104]</sup></a> We may -suppose that his thoughts ran somewhat as follows. -If Thales had been right in saying that water was the -fundamental reality, it would not be easy to see how -anything else could ever have existed. One side of -the opposition, the cold and moist, would have had its -way unchecked, injustice would have prevailed, and the -warm and dry would have been driven from the field -long ago. We must, then, have something which is -not itself one of the warring opposites we know, something -more primitive, out of which they arise, and into -which they once more pass away. That Anaximander -called this something by the name of φύσις, is clear -<span class='pageno' id='Page_57'>57</span>from the doxographers; the current statement that the -word ἀρχή in the sense of a “first principle” was introduced -by him, is probably due to a misunderstanding -of what Theophrastos said.<a id='r105' /><a href='#f105' class='c014'><sup>[105]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Aristotle’s account of the theory.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec15'></a>15. It was natural for Aristotle to regard this -theory as an anticipation or presentiment of his own -doctrine of “indeterminate matter.”<a id='r106' /><a href='#f106' class='c014'><sup>[106]</sup></a> He knew very -well, of course, that he himself was the author of that; -but it is in accordance with his method to represent his -own theories as the distinct formulation of truths which -earlier thinkers had only guessed at. It was to be -expected, then, that he should sometimes express -the views of Anaximander in terms of the theory of -“elements.” He knew too that the Boundless was a -body,<a id='r107' /><a href='#f107' class='c014'><sup>[107]</sup></a> though in his own system there was no room -for anything corporeal prior to the elements; so he had -to speak of it as a boundless body “alongside of” or -“distinct from” the elements (παρὰ τὰ στοιχεῖα). So -<span class='pageno' id='Page_58'>58</span>far as I know, no one has doubted that, when he uses -this phrase, he is referring to Anaximander.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In a number of other places Aristotle speaks of a -thinker, whom he does not happen to name, who held -that the primary substance was something “intermediate -between” the elements or between two of them.<a id='r108' /><a href='#f108' class='c014'><sup>[108]</sup></a> -Nearly all the Greek commentators referred this to -Anaximander also, but most modern writers refuse to -follow them. It is, no doubt, easy to show that -Anaximander can have never meant to describe the -Boundless in this way, but that is no real objection to the -older interpretation. It is difficult to see that it is more -of an anachronism to call the Boundless “intermediate -between the elements” than to say that it is “distinct -from the elements”; and indeed, if once we introduce -the elements at all, the former description is in some -ways the more adequate of the two. At any rate, if -we refuse to understand these passages as referring to -Anaximander, we shall have to say that Aristotle -paid a great deal of attention to some early thinker, -whose very name has been lost, and who not only -agreed with some of Anaximander’s views, but also, -as is shown by one passage, used some of his most -characteristic expressions.<a id='r109' /><a href='#f109' class='c014'><sup>[109]</sup></a> We may add that in one -<span class='pageno' id='Page_59'>59</span>or two places Aristotle certainly seems to identify the -“intermediate” with the something “distinct from” the -elements.<a id='r110' /><a href='#f110' class='c014'><sup>[110]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>There is even one place in which he appears to -speak of Anaximander’s Boundless as a “mixture,” -though his words may perhaps admit of another interpretation.<a id='r111' /><a href='#f111' class='c014'><sup>[111]</sup></a> -But this is of no consequence for our -interpretation of Anaximander himself. It is certain -that he cannot have said anything about “elements,” -which no one thought of before Empedokles, and no -one could think of before Parmenides. The question -has only been mentioned at all because it has been -the subject of a lengthy controversy,<a id='r112' /><a href='#f112' class='c014'><sup>[112]</sup></a> and because -it throws great light on the historical value of Aristotle’s -statements. From the point of view of his own system, -these are abundantly justified; but we shall have to -remember in other cases that, when he seems to attribute -an idea to some earlier thinker, we are not in the least -bound to believe what he says in a historical sense.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The primary substance is infinite.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec16'></a>16. Anaximander’s reason for conceiving the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_60'>60</span>primary substance as boundless was, no doubt, that -indicated by Aristotle, namely, “that becoming might -not fail.”<a id='r113' /><a href='#f113' class='c014'><sup>[113]</sup></a> It is not likely, however, that these words -are his own, though the doxographers speak as if they -were. It is enough for us to know that Theophrastos, -who had seen his book, attributed the thought to him. -And certainly the way in which he regarded the world -would bring home to him with more than common -force the need of a boundless stock of matter. The -“opposites” of which our world consists are, we have -seen, at war with one another, and their strife is marked -by “unjust” encroachments on either side. The warm -commits “injustice” in summer, the cold in winter. -To redress the balance, they must be absorbed once -more in their common ground; and this would lead -in the long run to the destruction of everything but -the Boundless itself, if there were not an inexhaustible -supply of it from which opposites might continually -be separated out afresh. We must picture to ourselves, -then, an endless mass, which is not any one of the -opposites we know, stretching out without limit on -every side of the heavens which bound the world we -live in.<a id='r114' /><a href='#f114' class='c014'><sup>[114]</sup></a> This mass is a body, and out of it our world -<span class='pageno' id='Page_61'>61</span>once emerged by the “separating out” of the opposites, -which one day will all be absorbed again in the Boundless, -and our world will cease to be.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The eternal motion.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec17'></a>17. The doxographers say it was the “eternal -motion” that brought into being “all the heavens and all -the worlds within them.” As we have seen (<a href='#In.8'>§ VIII</a>), -it is not likely that Anaximander himself used the -phrase “eternal motion.” That is rather Aristotle’s own -version of what he found stated about the “separating -out” of opposites. We are not told expressly how -Anaximander conceived this to operate, but the term -“separating out” suggests some process of shaking and -sifting as in a sieve. Now it is just such a process that -Plato makes the Pythagorean Timaios describe, and the -most probable theory is certainly that here, as in many -other cases, he has reproduced a genuinely early view. -As we shall see, it is quite likely that the Pythagoreans -should have followed Anaximander in this.<a id='r115' /><a href='#f115' class='c014'><sup>[115]</sup></a> In -any case, it is wrong to identify the “eternal motion” -with the diurnal revolution of the heavens, as has -sometimes been done. That motion cannot possibly -be eternal, for the simple reason that the heavens -themselves are perishable. Aristotle says, indeed, that -all who believe the world has come into being represent -<span class='pageno' id='Page_62'>62</span>the earth as having been forced into the centre by the -circular motion;<a id='r116' /><a href='#f116' class='c014'><sup>[116]</sup></a> but, though this doubtless refers to -Anaximander among others, it is quite irrelevant here. -It has to do only with the formation of the world after -it has been once for all separated off and enclosed in its -own heaven, and we shall have to remember it when -we come to that part of the theory. At present, we -have only to do with the motion of the Boundless -itself; and, if we wish to picture that, it is much safer -to regard it as a sort of shaking up and down which -sorts out the opposites from the infinite mass.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The innumerable worlds.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec18'></a>18. We are told more than once that Anaximander -believed there were “innumerable worlds in the Boundless,”<a id='r117' /><a href='#f117' class='c014'><sup>[117]</sup></a> -and it is now usual to regard these with Zeller -as an infinite series succeeding one another in time. -It may be allowed at once that his disproof of the idea -that the worlds are coexistent and eternal is decisive. -To suppose that Anaximander regarded this or any -other world as eternal, is a flat contradiction of everything -we otherwise know, and of the Theophrastean -tradition that he taught the world was perishable. We -have, then, to decide between the view that, though all -the worlds are perishable, there may be an unlimited -number of them in existence at the same time, and the -view that a new world never comes into existence till -<span class='pageno' id='Page_63'>63</span>the old one has passed away. Now, Zeller allows<a id='r118' /><a href='#f118' class='c014'><sup>[118]</sup></a> that -there is nothing in the first of these views that is -inconsistent with what we know of Anaximander; but -he thinks all the statements which have come down to -us point rather to the second. It seems to me that -this is by no means the case, and, as the matter is -of fundamental importance, it will be necessary to -examine the evidence once more.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In the first place, the doxographical tradition proves -that Theophrastos discussed the views of all the early -philosophers as to whether there was one world or an -infinite number, and there can be no doubt that, when -he ascribed “innumerable worlds” to the Atomists, -he meant coexistent and not successive worlds. Now, -if he had really classed two such different views under -one head, he would at least have been careful to point -out in what respect they differed, and there is no trace of -any such distinction in our tradition. On the contrary, -Anaximander, Anaximenes, Archelaos, Xenophanes, -Diogenes, Leukippos, Demokritos, and Epicurus are -all mentioned together as holding the doctrine of -“innumerable worlds” on all sides of this one,<a id='r119' /><a href='#f119' class='c014'><sup>[119]</sup></a> and the -only distinction drawn between their views is that, -while Epicurus made the distances between these -worlds unequal, Anaximander said all the worlds were -equidistant.<a id='r120' /><a href='#f120' class='c014'><sup>[120]</sup></a> Zeller rejected this evidence, which he -<span class='pageno' id='Page_64'>64</span>supposed to be merely that of Stobaios, on the -ground that we can have no confidence in a writer -who attributes “innumerable worlds” to Anaximenes, -Archelaos, and Xenophanes. With regard to the first -two, I hope to show that the statement is quite correct, -and that it is not even incorrect in the case of the last.<a id='r121' /><a href='#f121' class='c014'><sup>[121]</sup></a> -In any case, it can be proved that the passage comes -from Aetios,<a id='r122' /><a href='#f122' class='c014'><sup>[122]</sup></a> and there is no reason for doubting that, -in the last resort, it is derived from Theophrastos, -though the name of Epicurus may have been added -later. This is still further confirmed by what Simplicius -says in his commentary on the <cite>Physics</cite>.<a id='r123' /><a href='#f123' class='c014'><sup>[123]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Those who assumed innumerable worlds, <i>e.g.</i> Anaximander, -Leukippos, Demokritos, and, at a later date, Epicurus, held -that they came into being and passed away <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>ad infinitum</i></span>, some -always coming into being and others passing away.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It is probable that this too comes from Theophrastos -through Alexander. Simplicius does not invent such -things.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We come lastly to a very important statement -which Cicero has copied from Philodemos, the author -of the Epicurean treatise on Religion found at -Herculaneum, or perhaps from the immediate source -of that work. “Anaximander’s opinion was,” he makes -Velleius say, “that there were gods who came into -being, rising and passing away at long intervals, and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_65'>65</span>that these were the innumerable worlds”;<a id='r124' /><a href='#f124' class='c014'><sup>[124]</sup></a> and this -must clearly be taken along with the statement of -Aetios to the effect that, according to Anaximander, -the “innumerable heavens” were gods.<a id='r125' /><a href='#f125' class='c014'><sup>[125]</sup></a> Now it is very -much more natural to understand the “long intervals” -which Cicero mentions as intervals of space than as intervals -of time;<a id='r126' /><a href='#f126' class='c014'><sup>[126]</sup></a> and, if we take the passage in this way, -we have a perfect agreement among all our authorities.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It may be added that it is very unnatural to understand -the statement that the Boundless “encompasses -all the worlds” of worlds succeeding one another in -time; for on this view there is at a given time only -one world to “encompass.” Moreover, the argument -mentioned by Aristotle that, if what is outside the -heavens is infinite, body must be infinite, and there -must be innumerable worlds, can only be understood -in this sense, and is certainly intended to represent -the reasoning of the Milesians; for they were the only -cosmologists who held there was a boundless body -outside the heavens.<a id='r127' /><a href='#f127' class='c014'><sup>[127]</sup></a> Lastly, we happen to know that -Petron, one of the earliest Pythagoreans, held there -were just one hundred and eighty-three worlds arranged -in a triangle,<a id='r128' /><a href='#f128' class='c014'><sup>[128]</sup></a> which shows that views of this sort -<span class='pageno' id='Page_66'>66</span>existed long before the Atomists, and looks like an -attempt to introduce some order into Anaximander’s -universe.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Origin of the heavenly bodies.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec19'></a>19. The doxographers have not left us in the dark -as to the process by which the different parts of the -world arose from the Boundless. The following statement -comes ultimately from Theophrastos:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>He says that something capable of begetting hot and cold -was separated off from the eternal at the origin of this world. -From this arose a sphere of flame which grew round the air -encircling the earth, as the bark grows round a tree. When -this was torn off and enclosed in certain rings, the sun, moon, -and stars came into existence.—Ps.-Plut. <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 2 -(R. P. 19).</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>We see from this that when a portion of the Boundless -had been separated off from the rest to form a -world, it first of all differentiated itself into the two -opposites, hot and cold. The hot appears as a sphere -of flame surrounding the cold; the cold, as earth with -air surrounding it. We are not told, however, in this -extract how the cold came to be differentiated into -earth, air, and water; but there is a passage in -Aristotle’s <cite>Meteorology</cite> which throws some light on -the subject. We read there:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>But those who are wiser in the wisdom of men give an -origin for the sea. At first, they say, all the terrestrial region -was moist; and, as it was dried up by the sun, the portion of -it that evaporated produced the winds and the turnings of the -sun and moon, while the portion left behind was the sea. So -they think the sea is becoming smaller by being dried up, -and that at last it will all be dry.—<cite>Meteor.</cite> Β, 1. 353 b 5.</p> - -<hr class='c019' /> - -<p class='c002'>And the same absurdity arises for those who say that the -earth and the terrestrial part of the world at first were moist, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_67'>67</span>but that air arose from the heat of the sun, and that the -whole world was thus increased, and that this is the cause of -winds and the turnings of the heavens.<a id='r129' /><a href='#f129' class='c014'><sup>[129]</sup></a>—<i>Ib.</i> 2. 355 a 21 -(R. P. 20 a).</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>In his commentary on the passage, Alexander tells -us that this was the view of Anaximander and -Diogenes; and what he says is amply confirmed by -Anaximander’s theory of the sea as it is given by the -doxographers (<a href='#sec20'>§ 20</a>). We conclude, then, that after -the first separation of the hot and the cold, the heat of -the sphere of flame turned part of the moist, cold -interior of the world into air or vapour—it is all one -at this date—and that the expansion of this mist -broke up the sphere of flame itself into rings. I give -the theory which he adopted to explain the origin of -the heavenly bodies from these rings as it has been -preserved by Hippolytos, with some supplements from -Aetios:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>The heavenly bodies are wheels of fire separated off from -the fire which encircles the world, and enclosed in air. And -they have breathing-holes, certain pipe-like passages at which -the heavenly bodies are seen. For this reason, too, when the -breathing-holes are stopped, eclipses occur. And the moon -appears now to wax and now to wane because of the stopping -and opening of the passages. The circle of the sun is -twenty-seven times the size (of the earth, while that) of the -moon is eighteen times as large.<a id='r130' /><a href='#f130' class='c014'><sup>[130]</sup></a> The sun is highest of all, -and lowest are the wheels of the fixed stars.—Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. -6 (R. P. 20).</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_68'>68</span>Anaximander said the stars were hoop-like compressions of -air, full of fire, breathing out flames at a certain point from -orifices. The sun was highest of all, after it came the moon, -and below these the fixed stars and the planets.—Aetios, ii. -13, 7; 15, 6 (R. P. 19 a).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Anaximander said the sun was a ring twenty-eight times -the size of the earth, like a cart-wheel with the felloe hollow -and full of fire, showing the fire at a certain point, as if -through the nozzle of a pair of bellows.—Aet. ii. 20, 1 -(R. P. 19 a).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Anaximander said the sun was equal to the earth, but the -ring from which it breathes out and by which it is carried round -was twenty-seven times as large as the earth.—Aet. ii. 21, 1 -(<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 351).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Anaximander said the moon was a ring eighteen times the -size of the earth....—Aet. ii. 25, 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 355).<a id='r131' /><a href='#f131' class='c014'><sup>[131]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Anaximander held that thunder and lightning were caused -by the blast. When it is shut up in a thick cloud and bursts -forth with violence, then the breakage of the cloud makes the -noise, and the rift gives the appearance of a flash by contrast -with the darkness of the cloud.—Aet. iii. 3, 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 367).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Anaximander held that wind was a current of air (<cite>i.e.</cite> -vapour) which arose when its finest and moistest particles were -set in motion or dissolved by the sun.—Aet. iii. 6, 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> -p. 374).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Rain was produced by the moisture drawn up from the -earth by the sun.—Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 6, 7 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 560).</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>We saw above that the sphere of flame was broken -up into rings by the expansion of the air or vapour -that its own heat had drawn up from the moist, cold -interior. We must remember that Anaximander knew -nothing of the ring of Saturn. There are three of -these rings, that of the sun, that of the moon, and, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_69'>69</span>lastly, nearest to the earth, the circle of the stars. -The circle of the sun was twenty-seven times, and that -of the moon eighteen times as large as the earth, from -which we may perhaps infer that the circle of the stars -was nine times as large. The numbers nine, eighteen, -twenty-seven, play a considerable part in primitive -cosmogonies.<a id='r132' /><a href='#f132' class='c014'><sup>[132]</sup></a> We do not see the rings of fire as -complete circles; for the mist that formed them -encloses the fire, and becomes an outer ring of opaque -vapour. These outer rings, however, have openings at -one point of their circumference, through which the -fire escapes, and these are the heavenly bodies we -actually see.<a id='r133' /><a href='#f133' class='c014'><sup>[133]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>It will be observed that we only hear of three -circles, and that the circle of the sun is the highest. -The circle of the stars presents some difficulty. It is, -in all probability, the Milky Way, the appearance of -which may well have suggested the whole theory.<a id='r134' /><a href='#f134' class='c014'><sup>[134]</sup></a> It -seems that Anaximander must have thought it had -more “breathing-holes” than one, though the tradition -is silent on this point. There is not the slightest -reason for supposing that he regarded it as a sphere. -He could not have failed to see that a sphere so -placed would make the sun and moon permanently -invisible. What, then, are we to say of the fixed -<span class='pageno' id='Page_70'>70</span>stars that do not lie in the Milky Way? There seems -to be no way of accounting for them unless we assume -that they are the “innumerable worlds” which we -have just discussed. As the fire and air which -surrounded the world have been broken up into rings, -we must be able to see right out into the Boundless, -and the fixed stars must be just the worlds, each -surrounded by its fiery envelope. It does not seem -possible to explain all we are told in any other way; -and, if this is right, the statement of some authors, -that Anaximander regarded the stars of heaven as gods, -may be more than the mere mistake which it is now -generally taken to be.<a id='r135' /><a href='#f135' class='c014'><sup>[135]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The explanation given of thunder and lightning -was very similar. They too were caused by fire -breaking through compressed air, that is to say, through -the storm-clouds. It seems probable that this is really -the origin of the theory, and that Anaximander -explained the heavenly bodies on the analogy of -lightning, not <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>vice versa</i></span>. That would be in perfect -agreement with the meteorological interest of the time.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Earth and sea.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec20'></a>20. We turn now to what we are told of the origin -of earth and sea from the moist, cold matter which -was “separated off” in the beginning, and which filled -the inside of the sphere of flame:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>The sea is what is left of the original moisture. The fire -has dried up most of it and turned the rest salt by scorching -it.—Aet. iii. 16, 1 (R. P. 20 a).</p> - -<p class='c002'>He says that the earth is cylindrical in form, and that its -<span class='pageno' id='Page_71'>71</span>depth is as a third part of its. breadth.—Ps.-Plut. <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 2 -(R. P. <i>ib.</i>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The earth swings free, held in its place by nothing. It -stays where it is because of its equal distance from everything. -Its shape is convex and round, and like a stone pillar. We -are on one of the surfaces, and the other is on the opposite -side.<a id='r136' /><a href='#f136' class='c014'><sup>[136]</sup></a>—Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 6 (R. P. 20).</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Adopting for a moment the later theory of -“elements,” we see that Anaximander put fire on one -side as “the hot,” and all the rest on the other as “the -cold,” which is also moist. This may explain how -Aristotle came to speak of the Boundless as intermediate -between fire and water. And we have seen -also that the moist element was partly turned into “air” -or vapour by the fire, which explains how he could say -the Boundless was something between fire and air, or -between air and water.<a id='r137' /><a href='#f137' class='c014'><sup>[137]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The moist, cold interior of the world is not, it will -be noticed, pure water. It is always called “the moist” -or “the moist state.” That is because it has to be still -further differentiated under the influence of heat into -earth, water, and vapour. The gradual drying up of -the water by the fire is a good example of what Anaximander -meant by “injustice.” And we see how this -injustice brings about the destruction of the world. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_72'>72</span>The fire will in time dry up and burn up the whole of -the cold, moist element. But then it will not be fire -any longer; it will simply be the “mixture,” if we -choose to call it so, of the hot and cold—that is, it will -be the same as the Boundless which surrounds it, and -will pass away into it.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The view which Anaximander takes of the earth is -a great advance upon anything we can reasonably -attribute to Thales, and Aristotle has preserved the -arguments by which he supported it. It is equally -distant from the extremes in every direction, and there -is no reason for it to move up or down or sideways.<a id='r138' /><a href='#f138' class='c014'><sup>[138]</sup></a> -Still, he does not attain to the idea that it is spherical. -He believes that we live on a convex disc, and from -this the cylindrical form follows as a matter of course. -The really remarkable thing is that he should have -seen, however dimly, that there is no absolute up and -down in the world.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Animals.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec21'></a>21. We have seen enough to show us that the -speculations of Anaximander about the world were of -an extremely daring character; we come now to the -crowning audacity of all, his theory of the origin of -living creatures. The Theophrastean account of this -has been well preserved by the doxographers:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Living creatures arose from the moist element as it was -evaporated by the sun. Man was like another animal, namely, -a fish, in the beginning.—Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 6 (R. P. 22 a).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The first animals were produced in the moisture, each enclosed -in a prickly bark. As they advanced in age, they came -<span class='pageno' id='Page_73'>73</span>out upon the drier part. When the bark broke off,<a id='r139' /><a href='#f139' class='c014'><sup>[139]</sup></a> they -survived for a short time.—Aet. v. 19, 1 (R. P. 22).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Further, he says that originally man was born from animals -of another species. His reason is that while other animals -quickly find food by themselves, man alone requires a lengthy -period of suckling. Hence, had he been originally as he is -now, he would never have survived.—Ps.-Plut. <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 2 -(R. P. <i>ib.</i>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>He declares that at first human beings arose in the inside -of fishes, and after having been reared like sharks,<a id='r140' /><a href='#f140' class='c014'><sup>[140]</sup></a> and -become capable of protecting themselves, they were finally -cast ashore and took to land.—Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Symp. Quaest.</cite></span> 730 f -(R. P. <i>ib.</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The importance of these statements has sometimes -been overrated and still more often underestimated. -Anaximander has been called a precursor of Darwin by -some, while others have treated the whole thing as a -mythological survival. It is therefore important to -notice that this is one of the rare cases where we have -not merely a <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>placitum</i></span>, but an indication, meagre -though it be, of the observations on which it was based, -and the line of argument by which it was supported. -It is clear from this that Anaximander had an idea of -what is meant by adaptation to environment and -survival of the fittest, and that he saw the higher -mammals could not represent the original type of -animal. For this he looked to the sea, and he naturally -fixed upon those fishes which present the closest -analogy to the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>mammalia</i></span>. The statements of Aristotle -<span class='pageno' id='Page_74'>74</span>about the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>galeus levis</i></span> were shown long ago by Johannes -Müller to be more accurate than those of later -naturalists, and we now know that these observations -were already made by Anaximander. The manner in -which the shark nourishes its young furnished him with -the very thing he required to explain the survival of -the earliest animals.<a id='r141' /><a href='#f141' class='c014'><sup>[141]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Theology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec22'></a>22. In the course of our discussion of the “innumerable -worlds” we saw that Anaximander regarded -these as gods. It is true, of course, as Zeller says,<a id='r142' /><a href='#f142' class='c014'><sup>[142]</sup></a> that -to the Greeks the word θεός meant primarily an object -of worship, and he rightly adds that no one would think -of worshipping innumerable worlds. This, however, is -no real objection to our interpretation, though it serves -to bring out an interesting point in the development -of Greek theological ideas. The philosophers, in fact, -departed altogether from the received usage of the -word θεός. Empedokles called the Sphere and the -Elements gods, though it is not to be supposed that he -regarded them as objects of worship, and in the same -<span class='pageno' id='Page_75'>75</span>way we shall find that Diogenes of Apollonia spoke of -Air as a god.<a id='r143' /><a href='#f143' class='c014'><sup>[143]</sup></a> As we may learn from the <cite>Clouds</cite> of -Aristophanes, it was just this way of speaking that got -philosophers the name of being ἄθεοι. It is of great -importance to bear this point in mind; for, when we -come to Xenophanes, we shall see that the god or gods -he spoke of meant just the world or worlds. It seems -also that Anaximander called the Boundless itself -divine,<a id='r144' /><a href='#f144' class='c014'><sup>[144]</sup></a> which is quite in accordance with the language -of Empedokles and Diogenes referred to above.</p> - -<h3 class='c018'>III. <span class='sc'>Anaximenes</span></h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Life.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec23'></a>23. Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, was, -according to <a id='corr75.13'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='Theophratos'>Theophrastos</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_75.13'><ins class='correction' title='Theophratos'>Theophrastos</ins></a></span>, an “associate” of Anaximander.<a id='r145' /><a href='#f145' class='c014'><sup>[145]</sup></a> -Apollodoros said, it appears, that he -“flourished” about the time of the fall of Sardeis -(546/5 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>), and died in Ol. LXIII. (528/524 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>).<a id='r146' /><a href='#f146' class='c014'><sup>[146]</sup></a> -In other words, he was born when Thales “flourished,” -and “flourished” when Thales died, and this means -that Apollodoros had no definite information about his -date at all. He most probably made him die in the -sixty-third Olympiad because that gives just a hundred -years, or three generations, for the Milesian school from -the birth of Thales. We cannot, therefore, say anything -<span class='pageno' id='Page_76'>76</span>positive as to his date, except that he must have -been younger than Anaximander, and must have -flourished before 494 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, when the school was, of -course, broken up by the destruction of Miletos.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>His book.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec24'></a>24. Anaximenes wrote a book which certainly survived -until the age of literary criticism; for we are told -that he used a simple and unpretentious Ionic,<a id='r147' /><a href='#f147' class='c014'><sup>[147]</sup></a> very -different, we may suppose, from the poetical prose of -Anaximander.<a id='r148' /><a href='#f148' class='c014'><sup>[148]</sup></a> We may probably trust this criticism, -which comes ultimately from Theophrastos; and it -furnishes a good illustration of the truth that the -character of a man’s thoughts is sure to find expression -in his style. We have seen that the speculations of -Anaximander were distinguished for their hardihood -and breadth; those of Anaximenes are marked by just -the opposite quality. He appears to have thought out -his system carefully, but he rejects the more audacious -theories of his predecessor. The result is that, while -his view of the world is on the whole much less like -the truth than Anaximander’s, it is more fruitful in -ideas that were destined to hold their ground.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Theory of the primary substance.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec25'></a>25. Anaximenes is one of the philosophers on whom -Theophrastos wrote a special monograph;<a id='r149' /><a href='#f149' class='c014'><sup>[149]</sup></a> and this -gives us an additional guarantee for the trustworthiness -of the tradition derived from his great work. The -following<a id='r150' /><a href='#f150' class='c014'><sup>[150]</sup></a> are the passages which seem to contain the -fullest and most accurate account of what he had to -say on the central feature of the system:—</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' id='Page_77'>77</span></div> -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Anaximenes of Miletos, son of Eurystratos, who had been -an associate of Anaximander, said, like him, that the underlying -substance was one and infinite. He did not, however, -say it was indeterminate, like Anaximander, but determinate; -for he said it was Air.—<cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 2 (R. P. 26).</p> - -<p class='c002'>From it, he said, the things that are, and have been, and -shall be, the gods and things divine, took their rise, while -other things come from its offspring.—Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 7 -(R. P. 28).</p> - -<p class='c002'>“Just as,” he said, “our soul, being air, holds us together, -so do breath and air encompass the whole world.”—Aet. i. 3, -4 (R. P. 24).</p> - -<p class='c002'>And the form of the air is as follows. Where it is most -even, it is invisible to our sight; but cold and heat, moisture -and motion, make it visible. It is always in motion; for, if -it were not, it would not change so much as it does.—Hipp. -<cite>Ref.</cite> i. 7 (R. P. 28).</p> - -<p class='c002'>It differs in different substances in virtue of its rarefaction -and condensation.—<cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 2 (R. P. 26).</p> - -<p class='c002'>When it is dilated so as to be rarer, it becomes fire; while -winds, on the other hand, are condensed Air. Cloud is formed -from Air by felting;<a id='r151' /><a href='#f151' class='c014'><sup>[151]</sup></a> and this, still further condensed, -becomes water. Water, condensed still more, turns to earth; -and when condensed as much as it can be, to stones.—Hipp. -<cite>Ref.</cite> i. 7 (R. P. 28).<a id='r152' /><a href='#f152' class='c014'><sup>[152]</sup></a></p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>Rarefaction and condensation.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec26'></a>26. At the first glance, this undoubtedly looks like -a falling off from the more refined doctrine of Anaximander -to a cruder view; but a moment’s reflexion will -show that this is not altogether the case. On the -contrary, the introduction of rarefaction and condensation -into the theory is a notable advance.<a id='r153' /><a href='#f153' class='c014'><sup>[153]</sup></a> In fact, it -<span class='pageno' id='Page_78'>78</span>makes the Milesian cosmology thoroughly consistent -for the first time; since it is clear that a theory which -explains everything by the transformations of a single -substance is bound to regard all differences as purely -quantitative. The infinite substance of Anaximander, -from which the opposites “in it” are “separated out,” -cannot, strictly speaking, be thought of as homogeneous, -and the only way to save the unity of the primary -substance is to say that all diversities are due to the -presence of more or less of it in a given space. And -when once this important step has been taken, it is no -longer necessary to make the primary substance something -“distinct from the elements,” to use Aristotle’s -inaccurate but convenient phrase; it may just as well -be one of them.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Air.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec27'></a>27. The air that Anaximenes speaks of includes a -good deal that we should not call by that name. In -its normal condition, when most evenly distributed, it is -invisible, and it then corresponds to our “air”; it is -identical with the breath we inhale and the wind that -blows. That is why he called it πνεῦμα. On the -other hand, the old idea, familiar to us in Homer, that -mist or vapour is condensed air, is still accepted without -question. In other words, we may say that Anaximenes -supposed it to be a good deal easier to get liquid -air than it has since proved to be. It was Empedokles, -we shall see, who first discovered that what we call air -was a distinct corporeal substance, and was not identical -either with vapour or with empty space. In the earlier -cosmologists “air” is always a form of vapour, and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_79'>79</span>even darkness is a form of it. It was Empedokles who -cleared up this point too by showing that darkness is a -shadow.<a id='r154' /><a href='#f154' class='c014'><sup>[154]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>It was natural for Anaximenes to fix upon Air in -this sense as the primary substance; for, in the system -of Anaximander, it occupied an intermediate place -between the two fundamental opposites, the sphere of -flame and the cold, moist mass within it (<a href='#sec19'>§ 19</a>). We -know from Plutarch that he fancied air became warmer -when rarefied, and colder when condensed. Of this -he satisfied himself by a curious experimental proof. -When we breathe with our mouths open, the air is -warm; when we breathe with our lips closed, it -is cold.<a id='r155' /><a href='#f155' class='c014'><sup>[155]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The world breathes.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec28'></a>28. This argument from human breathing brings us -to an important point in the theory of Anaximenes, -which is attested by the single fragment that has come -down to us.<a id='r156' /><a href='#f156' class='c014'><sup>[156]</sup></a> “Just as our soul, being air, holds us -together, so do breath and air encompass the whole -world.” The primary substance bears the same relation -to the life of the world as to that of man. Now this, -we shall see, was the Pythagorean view;<a id='r157' /><a href='#f157' class='c014'><sup>[157]</sup></a> and it is also -an early instance of the argument from the microcosm -to the macrocosm, and so marks the first beginnings of -an interest in physiological matters.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The parts of the world.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_80'>80</span><a id='sec29'></a>29. We turn now to the doxographical tradition -concerning the formation of the world and its parts:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>He says that, as the air was felted, the earth first came -into being. It is very broad and is accordingly supported by -the air.—Ps.-Plut. <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 3 (R. P. 25).</p> - -<p class='c002'>In the same way the sun and the moon and the other -heavenly bodies, which are of a fiery nature, are supported by -the air because of their breadth. The heavenly bodies were -produced from the earth by moisture rising from it. When -this is rarefied, fire comes into being, and the stars are composed -of the fire thus raised aloft. There were also bodies of -earthy substance in the region of the stars, revolving along -with them. And he says that the heavenly bodies do not move -under the earth, as others suppose, but round it, as a cap turns -round our head. The sun is hidden from sight, not because it -goes under the earth, but because it is concealed by the higher -parts of the earth, and because its distance from us becomes -greater. The stars give no heat because of the greatness of -their distance.—Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 7, 4-6 (R. P. 28).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Winds are produced when air is condensed and rushes -along under propulsion; but when it is concentrated and -thickened still more, clouds are generated; and, lastly, it turns -to water.<a id='r158' /><a href='#f158' class='c014'><sup>[158]</sup></a>—Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 7, 7 (Dox. p. 561).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The stars are fixed like nails in the crystalline vault of the -heavens.—Aet. ii. 14, 3 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 344).</p> - -<p class='c002'>They do not go under the earth, but turn round it.—<i>Ib.</i> -16, 6 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 346).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The sun is fiery.—<i>Ib.</i> 20, 2 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 348).</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is broad like a leaf.—<i>Ib.</i> 22, 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 352).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The heavenly bodies are diverted from their courses by the -resistance of compressed air.—<i>Ib.</i> 23, 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 352).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The moon is of fire.—<i>Ib.</i> 25, 2 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 356).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Anaximenes explained lightning like Anaximander, adding -as an illustration what happens in the case of the sea, which -flashes when divided by the oars.—<i>Ib.</i> iii. 3, 2 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 368).</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_81'>81</span>Hail is produced when water freezes in falling; snow, -when there is some air imprisoned in the water.—Aet. iii 4, 1 -(<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 370).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The rainbow is produced when the beams of the sun fall on -thick condensed air. Hence the anterior part of it seems red, -being burnt by the sun’s rays, while the other part is dark, -owing to the predominance of moisture. And he says that a -rainbow is produced at night by the moon, but not often, -because there is not constantly a full moon, and because the -moon’s light is weaker than that of the sun.—<cite>Schol. Arat.</cite><a id='r159' /><a href='#f159' class='c014'><sup>[159]</sup></a> -(<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 231).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The earth was like a table in shape.—Aet. iii. 10, 3 (<cite>Dox.</cite> -p. 377).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The cause of earthquakes was the dryness and moisture of -the earth, occasioned by droughts and heavy rains respectively.—<i>Ib.</i> -15, 3 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 379).</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>We have seen that Anaximenes was quite justified in -going back to Thales in regard to his general theory of -the primary substance; but it cannot be denied that -the effect of this upon the details of his cosmology was -unfortunate. The earth is once more imagined as a -table-like disc floating upon the air. The sun, moon, -and planets are also fiery discs which float on the air -“like leaves.” It follows that the heavenly bodies -cannot be thought of as going under the earth at night, -but only as going round it laterally like a cap or a -millstone.<a id='r160' /><a href='#f160' class='c014'><sup>[160]</sup></a> This curious view is also mentioned in -Aristotle’s <cite>Meteorology</cite>,<a id='r161' /><a href='#f161' class='c014'><sup>[161]</sup></a> where the elevation of the -northern parts of the earth, which makes it possible for -<span class='pageno' id='Page_82'>82</span>the heavenly bodies to be hidden from sight, is referred -to. In fact, whereas Anaximander had regarded the -orbits of the sun, moon, and stars as oblique with -reference to the earth, Anaximenes regarded the earth -itself as inclined. The only real advance is the -distinction of the planets, which float freely in the -air, from the fixed stars, which are fastened to the -“crystalline” vault of the sky.<a id='r162' /><a href='#f162' class='c014'><sup>[162]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The earthy bodies, which circulate among the -planets, are doubtless intended to account for eclipses -and the phases of the moon.<a id='r163' /><a href='#f163' class='c014'><sup>[163]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Innumerable worlds.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec30'></a>30. As might be expected, there is the same -difficulty about the “innumerable worlds” ascribed to -Anaximenes as about those of Anaximander, and most -of the arguments given above (<a href='#sec18'>§ 18</a>) apply here also. -The evidence, however, is far less satisfactory. Cicero -says that Anaximenes regarded air as a god, and adds -that it came into being.<a id='r164' /><a href='#f164' class='c014'><sup>[164]</sup></a> That there is some confusion -here is obvious. Air, as the primary substance, is -certainly eternal, and it is quite likely that Anaximenes -called it “divine,” as Anaximander did the Boundless; -but it is certain that he also spoke of gods who came -into being and passed away. These arose, he said, from -the air. This is expressly stated by Hippolytos,<a id='r165' /><a href='#f165' class='c014'><sup>[165]</sup></a> and -also by St. Augustine.<a id='r166' /><a href='#f166' class='c014'><sup>[166]</sup></a> These gods are probably to -<span class='pageno' id='Page_83'>83</span>be explained like Anaximander’s. Simplicius, indeed, -takes another view;<a id='r167' /><a href='#f167' class='c014'><sup>[167]</sup></a> but he may have been misled -by a Stoic authority.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Influence of Anaximenes.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec31'></a>31. It is not quite easy for us to realise that, -in the eyes of his contemporaries, and for long after, -Anaximenes was a much more important figure than -Anaximander. And yet the fact is certain. We shall -see that Pythagoras, though he followed Anaximander -in his account of the heavenly bodies, was far more -indebted to Anaximenes for his general theory of -reality (<a href='#sec53'>§ 53</a>). We shall see further that when, at a -later date, science revived once more in Ionia, it -was “the philosophy of Anaximenes” to which it -attached itself (<a href='#sec122'>§ 122</a>). Anaxagoras adopted many of -his most characteristic views (<a href='#sec135'>§ 135</a>), and some of them -even found their way into the cosmology of the -Atomists.<a id='r168' /><a href='#f168' class='c014'><sup>[168]</sup></a> Diogenes of Apollonia went back to the -central doctrine of Anaximenes, and once more made -Air the primary substance, though he also tried to -combine it with the theories of Anaxagoras (<a href='#sec188'>§ 188</a>). -We shall come to all this later on; but it seemed -desirable to point out at once that Anaximenes marks -the culminating point of the line of thought which -<span class='pageno' id='Page_84'>84</span>started with Thales, and to show how the “philosophy -of Anaximenes” came to mean the Milesian doctrine -as a whole. This it can only have done because it was -really the work of a school, of which Anaximenes was -the last distinguished representative, and because his -contribution to it was one that completed the system -he had inherited from his predecessors. That the -theory of rarefaction and condensation was really -such a completion of the Milesian system, we have -seen already (<a href='#sec26'>§ 26</a>), and it need only be added that a -clear realisation of this fact will be the best clue at -once to the understanding of the Milesian cosmology -itself and to that of the systems which followed it. In -the main, it is from Anaximenes that they all start.</p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f52'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r52'>52</a>. Herod. i. 29. Some other points may be noted in confirmation of -what has been said as to the “Hellenism” of the Mermnadai. Alyattes -had two wives, one of whom, the mother of Croesus, was a Karian; the -other was an Ionian, and by her he had a son called by the Greek name -Pantaleon (<i>ib.</i> 92). The offerings of Gyges were pointed out in the -treasury of Kypselos at Delphoi (<i>ib.</i> 14), and those of Alyattes were one -of the “sights” of the place (<i>ib.</i> 25). Croesus also showed great liberality -to Delphoi (<i>ib.</i> 50), and to many other Greek shrines (<i>ib.</i> 92). He gave most -of the pillars for the great temple at Ephesos. The stories of Miltiades (vi. -37) and Alkmeon (<i>ib.</i> 125) should also be mentioned in this connexion.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f53'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r53'>53</a>. Herod. i. 75. He disbelieves it because he had heard, probably from -the Greeks of Sinope, of the great antiquity of the bridge on the royal -road between Ankyra and Pteria (Ramsay, <cite>Asia Minor</cite>, p. 29). Xanthos -recorded a tradition that it was Thales who induced Croesus to ascend -his pyre when he knew a shower was coming (fr. 19).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f54'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r54'>54</a>. Milesians at Naukratis, Herod. ii. 178, where Amasis is said to have -been φιλέλλην. He subscribed to the rebuilding of the temple at Delphoi -after the great fire (<i>ib.</i> 180).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f55'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r55'>55</a>. Simplicius, indeed, quotes from Theophrastos the statement that -Thales had many predecessors (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 475, 11). This, however, need not -trouble us; for the scholiast on Apollonios Rhodios (ii. 1248) tells us that -Theophrastos made Prometheus the first philosopher, which is merely an -application of Peripatetic literalism to a remark of Plato’s (<cite>Phileb.</cite> 16 c 6). -Cf. Appendix, <a href='#app1.2'>§ 2</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f56'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r56'>56</a>. Herod. i. 170 (R. P. 9 d.); Diog. i. 22 (R. P. 9).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f57'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r57'>57</a>. Strabo, xiv. pp. 633, 636; Pausan. vii. 2, 7. Priene was called -Kadme, and the oldest annalist of Miletos bore the name Kadmos. See -E. Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alterth.</cite></span> ii. § 158.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f58'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r58'>58</a>. Diog. i. 23, Καλλίμαχος δ’ αὐτὸν οἶδεν εὑρετὴν τῆς ἄρκτου τῆς μικρᾶς -λέγων ἐν τοῖς Ἰάμβοις οὕτως—</p> -<div class='lg-container-b c015'> - <div class='linegroup'> - <div class='group'> - <div class='line'>καὶ τῆς ἁμάξης ἐλέγετο σταθμήσασθαι</div> - <div class='line'>τοὺς ἀστερίσκους, ᾗ πλέουσι Φοίνικες.</div> - </div> - </div> -</div> - -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f59'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r59'>59</a>. See Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Thales ein Semite?”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> ii. 165 sqq.), and Immisch, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Zu -Thales Abkunft”</span> (<i>ib.</i> p. 515). The name Examyes occurs also in Kolophon -(Hermesianax, <cite>Leontion</cite>, fr. 2, 38 Bgk.), and may be compared with other -Karian names such as Cheramyes and Panamyes.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f60'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r60'>60</a>. Herod. i. 74.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f61'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r61'>61</a>. For the theories held by Anaximander and Herakleitos, see <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>infra</i></span>, -§§ <a href='#sec19'>19</a>, <a href='#sec71'>71</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f62'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r62'>62</a>. Diog. i. 23, δοκεῖ δὲ κατά τινας πρῶτος ἀστρολογῆσαι καὶ ἡλιακὰς -ἐκλείψεις καὶ τροπὰς προειπεῖν, ὥς φησιν Εὔδημος ἐν τῇ περὶ τῶν ἀστρολογουμένων -ἱστορίᾳ, ὅθεν αὐτὸν καὶ Ξενοφάνης καὶ Ἡρόδοτος θαυμάζει.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f63'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r63'>63</a>. The first to call attention to the Chaldaean cycle in this connexion -seems to have been the Rev. George Costard, Fellow of Wadham College. -See his <cite>Dissertation on the Use of Astronomy in History</cite> (London, 1764), -p. 17. It is inaccurate to call it the <cite>Saros</cite>; that was quite another thing -(see Ginzel, <cite>Klio</cite>, i. p. 377).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f64'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r64'>64</a>. See George Smith, <cite>Assyrian Discoveries</cite> (1875), p. 409. The inscription -which follows was found at Kouyunjik:—</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div>“To the king my lord, thy servant Abil-Istar.</div> - </div> -</div> - -<hr class='c019' /> - -<p class='c002'>“Concerning the eclipse of the moon of which the king my lord sent to -me; in the cities of Akkad, Borsippa, and Nipur, observations they made, -and then in the city of Akkad, we saw part.... The observation was -made, and the eclipse took place.</p> - -<hr class='c019' /> - -<p class='c002'>“And when for the eclipse of the sun we made an observation, the -observation was made and it did not take place. That which I saw with -my eyes to the king my lord I send.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f65'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r65'>65</a>. For the literature of this subject, see R. P. 8 b, adding Ginzel, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Spezieller -Kanon</cite></span>, p. 171. See also Milhaud, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Science grecque</cite></span>, p. 62.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f66'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r66'>66</a>. Pliny, <cite>N.H.</cite> ii. 53.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f67'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r67'>67</a>. For Apollodoros, see Appendix, <a href='#app1.20'>§ 20</a>. The dates in our text of -Diogenes (i. 37; R. P. 8) cannot be reconciled with one another. That -given for the death of Thales is probably right; for it is the year before the -fall of Sardeis in 546/5 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, which is one of the regular eras used by -Apollodoros. It no doubt seemed natural to make Thales die the year -before the “ruin of Ionia” which he foresaw. Seventy-eight years before -this brings us to 625/4 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> for the birth of Thales, and this gives us 585/4 -<span class='fss'>B.C.</span> for his fortieth year. That is Pliny’s date for the eclipse, and Pliny’s -dates come from Apollodoros through Nepos. For a full discussion of the -subject, see Jacoby, pp. 175 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f68'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r68'>68</a>. Diog. i. 22 (R. P. 9). I do not discuss the Pythian era and the date -of Damasias here, though it appears to me that the last word has not yet -been said upon the subject. Jacoby (pp. 170 sqq.) argues strongly for 582/1, -the date now generally accepted. Others favour the Pythian year 586/5 -<span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, which is the very year of the eclipse, and this would help to explain -how those historians who used Apollodoros came to date it a year too -late; for Damasias was archon for two years and two months. It is -even possible that they misunderstood the words Δαμασίου τοῦ δευτέρου, -which are intended to distinguish him from an earlier archon of the same -name, as meaning “in the second year of Damasias.” Apollodoros gave -only Athenian archons, and the reduction to Olympiads is the work of -later writers. Kirchner, adopting the year 582/1 for Damasias, brings the -archonship of Solon down to 591/0 (<cite>Rh. Mus.</cite> liii. pp. 242 sqq.). But the -date of Solon’s archonship can never have been doubtful. On Kirchner’s -reckoning, we come to 586/5 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, if we keep the traditional date of -Solon. See also E. Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Forschungen</cite></span>, ii. pp. 242 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f69'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r69'>69</a>. Herod. ii. 20.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f70'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r70'>70</a>. Aet. iv. I. 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 384).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f71'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r71'>71</a>. <cite>Dox.</cite> pp. 226-229. The Latin epitome will be found in Rose’s edition -of the Aristotelian fragments.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f72'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r72'>72</a>. Hekataios, fr. 278 (<cite>F.H.G.</cite> i. p. 19).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f73'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r73'>73</a>. See Cantor, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vorlesungen über Geschichte der Mathematik</cite></span>, vol. i. pp. -112 sqq.; Allman, “Greek Geometry from Thales to Euclid” (<cite>Hermathena</cite>, -iii. pp. 164-174).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f74'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r74'>74</a>. Proclus, <cite>in Eucl.</cite> pp. 65, 7; 157, 10; 250, 20; 299, 1; 352, 14; -(Friedlein). Eudemos wrote the first histories of astronomy and -mathematics, just as Theophrastos wrote the first history of philosophy.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f75'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r75'>75</a>. Proclus, p. 352, 14, Εὔδημος δὲ ἐν ταῖς γεωμετρικαῖς ἱστορίαις εἰς -Θαλῆν τοῦτο ἀνάγει τὸ θεώρημα (<cite>Eucl.</cite> i. 26)· τὴν γὰρ τῶν ἐν θαλάττῃ -πλοίων ἀπόστοσιν δι’ οὗ τρόπου φασὶν αὐτὸν δεικνύναι τούτῳ προσχρῆσθαί -φησιν ἀναγκαῖον. For the method adopted by Thales, see Tannery, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Géométrie -grecque</cite></span>, p. 90. I agree, however, with Dr. Gow (<cite>Short History of -Greek Mathematics</cite>, § 84) that it is very unlikely Thales reproduced and -measured on land the enormous triangle which he had constructed in a -perpendicular plane over the sea. Such a method would be too cumbrous -to be of use. It is much simpler to suppose that he made use of the -Egyptian <em>seqt</em>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f76'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r76'>76</a>. The oldest version of this story is given in Diog. i. 27, ὁ δὲ Ἱερώνυμος -καὶ ἐκμετρῆσαί φησιν αὐτὸν τὰς πυραμίδας, ἐκ τῆς σκιᾶς παρατηρήσαντα ὅτε -ἡμῖν ἰσομεγέθης ἐστίν. Cf. Pliny, <cite>H. Nat.</cite> xxxvi. 82, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>mensuram altitudinis -earum deprehendere invenit Thales Milesius umbram metiendo qua -hora par esse corpori solet</i></span>. (Hieronymos of Rhodes was contemporary -with Eudemos.) This need imply no more than the simple reflexion that -the shadows of all objects will probably be equal to the objects at the same -hour. Plutarch (<cite>Conv. sept. sap.</cite> 147 a) gives a more elaborate method, -τὴν βακτηρίαν στήσας ἐπὶ τῷ πέρατι τῆς σκιᾶς ἣν ἡ πυραμὶς ἐποίει, γενομένων -τῇ ἐπαφῇ τῆς ἀκτῖνος δυοῖν τριγώνων, ἔδειξας ὃν ἡ σκιὰ πρὸς τὴν σκιὰν λόγον -εἶχε, τὴν πυραμίδα πρὸς τὴν βακτηρίαν ἔχουσαν. This, as Dr. Gow points -out, is only another calculation of <em>seqt</em>, and may very well have been the -method of Thales.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f77'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r77'>77</a>. Herod. i. 170 (R. P. 9 d).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f78'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r78'>78</a>. The story of Thales falling into a well (Plato, <cite>Tht.</cite> 174 a) is nothing -but a fable teaching the uselessness of σοφία; the anecdote about the -“corner” in oil (Ar. <cite>Pol.</cite> Α, 11. 1259 a 6) is intended to inculcate the -opposite lesson.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f79'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r79'>79</a>. See R. P. 9 e.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f80'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r80'>80</a>. R. P. <i>ib.</i></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f81'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r81'>81</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 983 b 21 (R. P. 10); <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Β, 13. 294 a 28 (R. P. -11). Later writers add that he gave this as an explanation of earthquakes -(so Aet. iii. 15, 1); but this is probably due to a “Homeric allegorist” -(Appendix, <a href='#app1.11'>§ 11</a>), who wished to explain the epithet ἐννοσίγαιος. Cf. -Diels, <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 225.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f82'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r82'>82</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 983 b 20 (R. P. 10). I have said “material cause,” -because τῆς τοιαύτης ἀρχῆς (b 19) means τῆς ἐν ὕλης εἴδει ἀρχῆς (b 7).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f83'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r83'>83</a>. Arist. <cite>de An.</cite> Α, 5. 411 a 7 (R. P. 13); <i>ib.</i> 2. 405 a 19 (R. P. 13 a). -Diog. i. 24 (R. P. <i>ib.</i>) adds amber. This comes from Hesychios of -Miletos; for it occurs in the scholium of Par. A on Plato, <cite>Rep.</cite> 600 a.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f84'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r84'>84</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 983 b 22; Aet. i. 3, 1; Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 36, 10 (R. P. 10, 12, -12 a). The last of the explanations given by Aristotle, namely, that Thales -was influenced by early cosmogonical theories about Okeanos and Tethys, -has strangely been supposed to be more historical than the rest, whereas -it is merely a fancy of Plato’s taken literally. Plato says more than once -(<cite>Tht.</cite> 180 d 2; <cite>Crat.</cite> 402 b 4) that Herakleitos and his predecessors -(οἱ ῥέοντες) derived their philosophy from Homer (<cite>Il.</cite> xiv. 201), and even -earlier sources (Orph. frag. 2, Diels, <cite>Vors.</cite> 1st ed. p. 491). In quoting this -suggestion, Aristotle refers it to “some”—a word which often means Plato—and -he calls the originators of the theory παμπαλαίους, as Plato had -done (<cite>Met.</cite> 983 b 28; cf. <cite>Tht.</cite> 181 b 3). This is a characteristic -example of the way in which Aristotle gets history out of Plato. See -Appendix, <a href='#app1.2'>§ 2</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f85'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r85'>85</a>. Compare Arist. <cite>de An.</cite> Α, 2. 405 b 2 (R. P. 220) with the passages -referred to in the last note. The same suggestion is made in Zeller’s fifth -edition (p. 188, n. 1), which I had not seen when the above was written. -Döring, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Thales”</span> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Zschr. f. Philos.</cite></span> 1896, pp. 179 sqq.), takes the same view. -We now know that, though Aristotle declines to consider Hippon as a -philosopher (<cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 984 a 3; R. P. 219 a), he was discussed in the history -of medicine known as Menon’s <cite>Iatrika</cite>. See Diels in <cite>Hermes</cite>, xxviii. p. 420.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f86'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r86'>86</a>. The view here taken most resembles that of the “Homeric allegorist” -Herakleitos (R. P. 12 a). That, however, is also a conjecture, probably of -Stoic, as the others are of Peripatetic, origin.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f87'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r87'>87</a>. Arist. <cite>de An.</cite> Α, 5. 411 a 7 (R. P. 13).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f88'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r88'>88</a>. Aet. i. 7, 11 = Stob. i. 56 (R. P. 14). On the sources here referred to, -see Appendix, <a href='#app1.11'>§§ 11</a>, <a href='#app1.12'>12</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f89'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r89'>89</a>. Cicero, <cite>de Nat. D.</cite> 1. 25 (R. P. 13 b). On Cicero’s source, see <cite>Dox.</cite> -pp. 125, 128. The Herculanean papyrus of Philodemos is, unfortunately, -defective just at this point, but it is not likely that the Epicurean manual -anticipated Cicero’s mistake.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f90'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r90'>90</a>. See Introd. <a href='#In.8'>§ VIII</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f91'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r91'>91</a>. Plato refers to the saying πάντα πλήρη θεῶν in <cite>Laws</cite>, 899 b 9 (R. P. 14 b), -without mentioning Thales. That ascribed to Herakleitos in the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de part. -An.</cite></span> Α, 5. 645 a 17 seems to be a mere variation on it. So in Diog. ix. 7 -(R. P. 46 d) Herakleitos is credited with the saying πάντα ψυχῶν εἶναι κα -δαιμόνων πλήρη.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f92'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r92'>92</a>. Bäumker, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Das Problem der Materie</cite></span>, p. 10, n. 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f93'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r93'>93</a>. R. P. 15 d. That the words πολίτης καὶ ἑταῖρος, given by Simplicius, -<cite>de Caelo</cite>, p. 615, 13, are the original words of Theophrastos is shown by the -agreement of Cic. <cite>Acad.</cite> ii. 118, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>popularis et sodalis</i></span>. The two passages -represent quite independent branches of the tradition. See Appendix, -<a href='#app1.7'>§§ 7</a>, <a href='#app1.12'>12</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f94'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r94'>94</a>. Diog. ii. 2 (R. P. 15); Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 6 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 560); Plin. <cite>N.H.</cite> -ii. 31. Pliny’s dates come from Apollodoros through Nepos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f95'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r95'>95</a>. <cite>Rhein. Mus.</cite> xxxi. p. 24.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f96'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r96'>96</a>. Xenophanes, fr. 22 (fr. 17, Karsten; R. P. 95 a). Jacoby (p. 190) -thinks that Apollodoros fixed the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span> of Anaximander forty years before -that of Pythagoras, that is, in 572/1 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, and that the statement as to his -age in 547/6 is a mere inference from this.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f97'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r97'>97</a>. The statement that he “died soon after” (Diog. ii. 2; R. P. 15) seems -to mean that Apollodoros made him die in the year of Sardeis (546/5), one -of his regular epochs. If this is so, Apollodoros cannot have said also that -he flourished in the days of Polykrates, and Diels is probably right in -supposing that this notice refers to Pythagoras and has been inserted in -the wrong place.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f98'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r98'>98</a>. For the gnomon, see Introd. p. 31, <a href='#f44'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 44</ins></a>; and cf. Diog. ii. 1 (R. P. 15); -Herod. ii. 109 (R. P. 15 a). Pliny, on the other hand, ascribes the -invention of the gnomon to Anaximenes (<cite>N.H.</cite> ii. 87). The truth seems -to be that the erection of celebrated gnomons was traditionally ascribed to -certain philosophers. That of Delos was referred to Pherekydes. For -the map see Agathemeros, i. 1, Ἀναξίμανδρος ὁ Μιλήσιος ἀκουστὴς Θαλέω -πρώτος ἐτόλμησε τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν πίνακι γράψαι, μεθ’ ὃν Ἑκαταῖος ὁ -Μιλήσιος ἀνὴρ πολυπλανὴς διηκρίβωσεν, ὥστε θαυμασθῆναι τὸ πρᾶγμα. -This is from Eratosthenes. Cf. Strabo, i. p. 7.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f99'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r99'>99</a>. See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given by Diels, -<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 133; <cite>Vors.</cite> pp. 13 sqq. In this and other cases, where the words -of the original have been preserved by Simplicius, I have given them -alone. On the various writers quoted, see Appendix, <a href='#app1.9'>§ 9</a> sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f100'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r100'>100</a>. Simplicius says “successor and disciple” (διάδοχος καὶ μαθητής) in -his Commentary on the <cite>Physics</cite>; but see above, p. 52, <a href='#f93'>n. 2</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f101'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r101'>101</a>. For the expression τὰ καλούμενα στοιχεῖα, see Diels, <cite>Elementum</cite>, -p. 25, n. 4. In view of this, we must keep the MS. reading εἶναι, instead -of writing νυνί with Usener.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f102'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r102'>102</a>. Diels (<cite>Vors.</cite> p. 13) begins the actual quotation with the words ἐξ ὧν δὲ - ἡ γένεσις.... The Greek practice of blending quotations with the text -tells against this. It is very rare for a Greek writer to open a verbal -quotation abruptly. Further, it is safer not to ascribe the terms γένεσις -and φθορά in their technical Platonic sense to Anaximander.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f103'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r103'>103</a>. The conception of elements is not older than Empedokles (<a href='#sec106'>§ 106</a>), and -the <em>word</em> στοιχεῖα, which is properly translated by <em>elementa</em>, was first used -in this sense by Plato. For the history of the term, see Diels, <cite>Elementum</cite> -(1899).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f104'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r104'>104</a>. The important word ἀλλήλοις was omitted in the Aldine Simplicius, -but is in all the MSS. We shall see that in Herakleitos “justice” means -the observance of an equal balance between what were called later the -elements (<a href='#sec72'>§ 72</a>). See also Introd. p. 32, <a href='#f45'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 45</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f105'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r105'>105</a>. If the words quoted from Theophrastos by Simplicius, <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 24, -15 (R. P. 16), stood by themselves, no one would ever have supposed them -to mean that Anaximander called the Boundless ἀρχή. They would -naturally be rendered: “having been the first to introduce this name (<i>i.e.</i> -τὸ ἄπειρον) for the ἀρχή”; but the words of Hippolytos (<cite>Ref.</cite> i. 6, 2), -πρῶτος τοὔνομα καλέσας τῆς ἀρχῆς, have led nearly all writers to take the -passage in the less obvious sense. We now know, however, that -Hippolytos is no independent authority, but rests altogether on Theophrastos; -so the natural view to take is that either his immediate source, -or he himself, or a copyist, has dropped out τοῦτο before τοὔνομα, and -corrupted κομίσας into καλέσας. It is not credible that Theophrastos made -both statements. The other passage from Simplicius compared by Usener -(p. 150, 23), πρῶτος αὐτὸς ἀρχὴν ὀνομάσας τὸ ὑποκείμενον, does not seem -to me to have anything to do with the question. It means simply that -Anaximander was the first to name the substratum as the “material cause,” -which is a different point altogether. This is how Neuhäuser takes the -passage (<cite>Anaximander</cite>, pp. 7 sqq.); but I cannot agree with him in holding -that the <em>word</em> ὑποκείμενον is ascribed to the Milesian.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f106'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r106'>106</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Λ, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f107'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r107'>107</a>. This is taken for granted in <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 4. 203 a 16; 204 b 22 (R. P. -16 b), and stated in Γ, 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). Cf. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 150, -20 (R. P. 18).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f108'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r108'>108</a>. Aristotle speaks four times of something intermediate between Fire -and Air (<cite>Gen. Corr.</cite> Β, 1. 328 b 35; <i>ib.</i> 5. 332 a 21; <cite>Phys.</cite> Α, 4. 187 a 14; -<cite>Met.</cite> Α, 7. 988 a 30). In five places we have something intermediate -between Water and Air (<cite>Met.</cite> Α, 7. 988 a 13; <cite>Gen. Corr.</cite> Β, 5. 332 a 21; -<cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 4. 203 a 18; <i>ib.</i> 5. 205 a 27; <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Γ, 5. 303 b 12). Once -(<cite>Phys.</cite> Α, 6. 189 b 1) we hear of something between Water and Fire. This -variation shows at once that he is not speaking historically. If any one -ever held the doctrine of τὸ μεταξύ, he must have known perfectly well -which two elements he meant.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f109'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r109'>109</a>. Arist. <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Γ, 5. 303 b 12, ὕδατος μὲν λεπτότερον, ἀέρος -πυκνότερον, ὃ περιέχειν φασὶ πάντας τοὺς οὐρανοὺς ἄπειρον ὄν. That -this refers to Idaios of Himera, as suggested by Zeller (p. 258), seems -very improbable. Aristotle nowhere mentions his name, and the tone -of his reference to Hippon in <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 984 a 3 (R. P. 219 a) shows -that he was not likely to pay so much attention to the ἐπίγονοι of the -Milesian school.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f110'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r110'>110</a>. Cf. <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 5. 204 b 22 (R. P. 16 b), where Zeller rightly refers τὸ παρὰ -τὰ στοιχεῖα to Anaximander. Now, at the end (205 a 25) the whole -passage is summarised thus: καὶ διὰ τοῦτ’ οὐθεὶς τὸ ἓν καὶ ἄπειρον πῦρ -ἐποίησεν οὐδὲ γῆν τῶν φυσιολόγων, ἀλλ’ ἢ ὕδωρ ἢ ἀέρα ἢ τὸ μέσον αὐτῶν. -In <cite>Gen. Corr.</cite> Β, 1. 328 b 35 we have first τι μεταξὺ τούτων σῶμά τε ὂν καὶ -χωριστόν, and a little further on (329 a 9) μίαν ὕλην παρὰ τὰ εἰρημένα. -In Β, 5. 332 a 20 we have οὐ μὴν οὐδ’ ἄλλο τί γε παρὰ ταῦτα, οἶον μέσον -τι ἀέρος καὶ ὕδατος ἢ ἀέρος καὶ πυρός.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f111'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r111'>111</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Λ, 2. 1069 b 18 (R. P. 16 c). Zeller (p. 205, n. 1) assumes an -“easy zeugma.” I should prefer to say that καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλέους τὸ μῖγμα -was an afterthought, and that Aristotle really meant τὸ Ἀναξαγόρου ἓν ... -καὶ Ἀναξιμάνδρου. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 4. 187 a 20 does not assign the “mixture” -to Anaximander.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f112'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r112'>112</a>. For the literature of this controversy, see R. P. 15. A good deal of -light is thrown on this and similar questions by W. A. Heidel, “Qualitative -Change in Pre-Socratic Philosophy” (<cite>Arch.</cite> xix. p. 333).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f113'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r113'>113</a>. <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 8. 208 a 8 (R. P. 16 a). That this refers to Anaximander -is shown by Aet. i. 3, 3 (R. P. 16 a). The same argument is given in <cite>Phys.</cite> -Γ, 4. 203 b 18, a passage where Anaximander has just been quoted by -name, τῷ οὕτως ἂν μόνον μὴ ὑπολείπειν γένεσιν καὶ φθοράν, εἰ ἄπειρον εἴη -ὅθεν ἀφαιρεῖται τὸ γιγνόμενον. I cannot, however, believe that the -arguments given at the beginning of this chapter (203 b 7; R. P. 17) are -Anaximander’s. They bear the stamp of the Eleatic dialectic, and are, in -fact, those of Melissos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f114'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r114'>114</a>. I have assumed that the word ἄπειρον means <em>spatially infinite</em> (though -not in any precise mathematical sense), not <em>qualitatively indeterminate</em>, as -maintained by Teichmüller and Tannery. The decisive reasons for holding -that the sense of the word is “boundless in extent” are as follows: (1) -Theophrastos said that the primary substance of Anaximander was ἄπειρον -and contained all the worlds, and the word περιέχειν everywhere means -“to encompass,” not, as has been suggested, “to contain potentially.” (2) -Aristotle says (<cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 4. 203 b 23) διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐν τῇ νοήσει μὴ ὑπολείπειν -καὶ ὁ ἀριθμὸς δοκεῖ ἄπειρος εἶναι καὶ τὰ μαθηματικὰ μεγέθη καὶ τὰ ἔξω τοῦ -οὐρανοῦ· ἀπείρου δ’ ὄντος τοῦ ἔξω, καὶ σῶμα ἄπειρον εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ κόσμοι. -(3) Anaximander’s theory of the ἄπειρον was adopted by Anaximenes, -and he identified it with Air, which is not qualitatively indeterminate.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f115'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r115'>115</a>. Plato, <cite>Tim.</cite> 52 e, where the elements are separated by being shaken, -stirred, and carried in different directions: “just as by sieves and instruments -for winnowing corn, the grain is shaken and sifted, and the dense and -heavy parts go one way, and the rare and light are carried to a different -place and settle there.” For the relation of Pythagoreanism to -Anaximander, see below, <a href='#sec53'>§ 53</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f116'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r116'>116</a>. Arist. <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Β, 13. 295 a 9. The identification of the eternal -motion with the diurnal revolution is insisted on by Teichmüller and -Tannery, and is the real source of the very unnatural interpretation which -they give to the word ἄπειρον. It was obviously difficult to credit -Anaximander with a belief in an infinite body which revolves in a circle. -The whole theory rests upon a confusion between the finite spherical -κόσμος within the οὐρανός and the infinite περιέχον outside it.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f117'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r117'>117</a>. [Plut.] <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 2 (R. P. 21 b). The words ἀνακυκλουμένων πάντων -αὐτῶν are most naturally to be interpreted as referring to an ἀνακύκλησις or -cycle of γένεσις and φθορά in each of a multitude of coexistent worlds. It -would be a very strange phrase to use of a succession of single worlds.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f118'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r118'>118</a>. Zeller, pp. 234 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f119'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r119'>119</a>. Aet. ii. 1, 3 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 327). Zeller is wrong in understanding κατὰ -πᾶσαν περιαγωγήν here of the revolution of a cycle. It means simply “in -every direction we turn,” and so does the alternative reading κατὰ πᾶσαν -περίστασιν. The six περιστάσεις are πρόσω, ὀπίσω, ἄνω, κάτω, δεξιά, ἀριστερά -(Nicom. <cite>Introd.</cite> p. 85, 11, Hoche), and Polybios uses περίστασις of surrounding -space.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f120'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r120'>120</a>. Aet. ii. 1, 8 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 329), τῶν ἀπείρους ἀποφηναμένων τοὺς κόσμους -Ἀναξίμανδρος τὸ ἴσον αὐτοὺς ἀπέχειν ἀλλήλων, Ἐπίκουρος ἄνισον εἶναι τὸ -μεταξὺ τῶν κόσμων διάστημα.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f121'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r121'>121</a>. For Anaximenes, see <a href='#sec30'>§ 30</a>; Xenophanes, <a href='#sec59'>§ 59</a>; Archelaos, Chap. X.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f122'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r122'>122</a>. This is shown by the fact that the list of names is given also by -Theodoret. See Appendix, <a href='#app1.10'>§ 10</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f123'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r123'>123</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 1121, 5 (R. P. 21 b). Zeller says (p. 234, n. 4) that -Simplicius elsewhere (<cite>de Caelo</cite>, p. 273 b 43) makes the same statement -more doubtfully. But the words ὡς δοκεῖ, on which he relies, are hardly an -expression of doubt, and refer, in any case, to the derivation of the doctrine -of “innumerable worlds” from that of the ἄπειρον, not to the doctrine -itself.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f124'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r124'>124</a>. Cicero, <cite>de Nat. D.</cite> i. 25 (R. P. 21).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f125'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r125'>125</a>. Aet. i. 7, 12 (R. P. 21 a). The reading of Stob., ἀπείρους οὐρανούς, is -guaranteed by the ἀπείρους κόσμους of Cyril, and the ἀπείρους νοῦς (<i>i.e.</i> οὐνους) -of the pseudo-Galen. See <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 11.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f126'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r126'>126</a>. It is simplest to suppose that Cicero found διαστήμασιν in his Epicurean -source, and that is a technical term for the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>intermundia</i></span>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f127'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r127'>127</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 4. 203 b 25, ἀπείρου δ’ ὄντος τοῦ ἔξω (sc. τοῦ οὐρανοῦ), -καὶ σῶμα ἄπειρον εἶναι δοκεῖ καὶ κόσμοι (sc. ἄπειροι). It is to be observed -that the next words—τί γὰρ μᾶλλον τοῦ κενοῦ ἐνταῦθα ἢ ἐνταῦθα;—show -clearly that this refers to the Atomists as well; but the ἄπειρον σῶμα will -not apply to them. The suggestion is rather that both those who made the -Boundless a body and those who made it a κενόν held the doctrine of ἀπειροι -κόσμοι in the same sense.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f128'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r128'>128</a>. See below, <a href='#sec53'>§ 53</a>. Cf. Diels, <cite>Elementum</cite>, pp. 63 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f129'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r129'>129</a>. Zeller’s difficulty about the meaning of τροπαί here (p. 223, n. 2) seems -to be an imaginary one. The moon has certainly a movement in declination -and, therefore, τροπαί (Dreyer, <cite>Planetary Systems</cite>, p. 17, n. 1).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f130'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r130'>130</a>. I assume with Diels (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 560) that something has fallen out in -our text of Hippolytos. I have, however, with Tannery, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Science hellène</cite></span>, -p. 91, supplied “eighteen times” rather than “nineteen times.” Zeller -(p. 224, n. 2) prefers the text of our MS. of Hippolytos to the testimony -of Aetios.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f131'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r131'>131</a>. Aetios goes on to say that the moon also is like a hollow cart-wheel -full of fire with an ἐκπνοή. The difference in the figures of Hippolytos and -Aetios is due to the fact that one refers to the internal and the other to the -external circumferences of the rings. Cf. Tannery, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Science hellène</cite></span>, p. 91; -and Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Ueber Anaximanders Kosmos”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> x. pp. 231 sqq.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f132'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r132'>132</a>. As Diels points out (<cite>Arch.</cite> x. p. 229) the explanation given by -Gomperz, p. 53, cannot be right. It implies the fifth century theory of -μύδροι. Anaximander knew nothing of the “great mass” of the sun.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f133'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r133'>133</a>. The true meaning of this doctrine was first explained by Diels (<cite>Dox.</cite> -pp. 25 sqq.). The flames rush forth <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>per magni circum spiracula mundi</i></span>, -as Lucretius has it (vi. 493). The πρηστῆρος αὐλός, to which these are -compared, is simply the nozzle of a pair of bellows, a sense which the -word πρηστήρ has in Apollonios Rhodios (iv. 776), and has nothing to do -with the meteorological phenomenon of the same name, for which see Chap. -III. <a href='#sec71'>§ 71</a>. It is not now necessary to refute the earlier interpretations.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f134'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r134'>134</a>. It cannot be the Zodiac; for the planets were not separately studied -yet.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f135'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r135'>135</a>. The <cite>Placita</cite> and Eusebios both have τοὺς ἀστέρας οὐρανίους instead of -τοὺς ἀπείρους οὐρανούς (see above, p. 65, <a href='#f125'>n. 2</a>), and it seems just possible that -this is not a mere corruption of the text. The common source may have -had both statements. I do not, however, rest the interpretation given -above on this very insecure basis. Quite apart from it, it seems to be the -only way out of the difficulty.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f136'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r136'>136</a>. The MSS. of Hippolytos have ὑγρὸν στρογγύλον. Roeper read γυρὸν -[στρογγύλον], supposing the second word to be a gloss on the first; but -Diels has shown (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 218) that both are wanted. The first means -“convex,” and applies to the <em>surface</em> of the earth; while the second -means “round,” and refers to its circuit. As to κίονι λίθῳ, it is not easy -to say anything positive. It might, possibly, be a mere corruption of -κυλίνδρῳ (cf. Plut. <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 2; R. P. 20 a); but, if so, it is a very old -one. Aetios (iii. 10, 2), who is quite independent of Hippolytos, has λίθῳ -κίονι; Roeper suggested κιονέῃ λίθῳ; Teichmüller, κίονος λιθῷ; while -Diels doubtfully puts forward λιθῷ κίονι, which he suggests might be a -Theophrastean modernisation of an original λιθέῃ κίονι (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 219).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f137'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r137'>137</a>. See above, p. 58, <a href='#f48'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 48</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f138'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r138'>138</a>. Arist. <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Β, 13. 295 b 10, εἰσὶ δέ τινες οἳ διὰ τὴν ὁμοιότητά -φασιν αὐτὴν (τὴν γῆν) μένειν, ὥσπερ τῶν ἀρχαίων Ἀναξίμανδρος· μᾶλλον -μὲν γὰρ οὐθὲν ἄνω ἢ κάτω ἢ εἰς τὰ πλάγια φέρεσθαι προσήκειν τὸ ἐπὶ τοῦ -μέσου ἱδρυμένον καὶ ὁμοίως πρὸς τὰ ἔσχατα ἔχον. That Aristotle is really -reproducing Anaximander seems to be shown by the use of ὁμοιότης in the -old sense of “equality.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f139'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r139'>139</a>. This is to be understood in the light of what we are told about γαλεοί -below. Cf. Arist. <cite>Hist. An.</cite> Ζ, 10. 565 a 25, τοῖς μὲν οὖν σκυλίοις, οὓς -καλοῦσί τινες νεβρίας γαλεούς, ὅταν περιρραγῇ καὶ ἐκπέσῃ τὸ ὄστρακον, -γίνονται οἱ νεοττοί.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f140'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r140'>140</a>. Reading ὥσπερ οἱ γαλεοί for ὥσπερ οἱ παλαιοί with Doehner, who -compares Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de soll. anim.</cite></span> 982 a, where the φιλόστοργον of the shark is -described. See p. 74, <a href='#f141'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 141</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f141'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r141'>141</a>. On Aristotle and the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>galeus levis</i></span>, see Johannes Müller, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Ueber den -glatten Hai des Aristoteles”</span> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>K. Preuss. Akad.</cite></span>, 1842), to which my attention -has been directed by my colleague, Prof. D’Arcy Thomson. The precise -point of the words τρεφόμενοι ὥσπερ οἱ γαλεοί appears from Arist. <cite>Hist. An.</cite> -Ζ, 10. 565 b 1, οἱ δὲ καλούμενοι λεῖοι τῶν γαλεῶν τὰ μὲν ᾠὰ ἴσχουσι μεταξὺ -τῶν ὑστερῶν ὁμοίως τοῖς σκυλίοις, περιστάντα δὲ ταῦτα εἰς ἑκατέραν τὴν δικρόαν -τῆς ὑστέρας καταβαίνει, καὶ τὰ ζῷα γίνεται τὸν ὀμφαλὸν ἔχοντα πρὸς τῇ -ὑστέρᾳ, ὥστε ἀναλισκομένων τῶν ᾠῶν ὁμοίως δοκεῖν ἔχειν τὸ ἔμβρυον τοῖς -τετράποσιν. It is not necessary to suppose that Anaximander referred to -the further phenomenon described by Aristotle, who more than once says -that all the γαλεοί except the ἀκανθίας “send out their young and take -them back again” (ἐξαφιᾶσι καὶ δέχονται εἰς ἑαυτοὺς τοὺς νεοττούς, <i>ib.</i> 565 b -23), for which compare also Ael. i. 17; Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de soll. anim.</cite></span> 982 a. The -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>placenta</i></span> and umbilical cord described by Johannes Müller will account -sufficiently for all he says. At the same time, I understand that deep-sea -fishermen at the present day confirm this remarkable statement also, and -two credible witnesses have informed me that they believe they have seen -the thing happen with their own eyes.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f142'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r142'>142</a>. Zeller, p. 230.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f143'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r143'>143</a>. For Empedokles, see Chap. V. <a href='#sec119'>§ 119</a>; and for Diogenes, Chap. X. -<a href='#sec188'>§ 188</a>, fr. <a href='#Di.5'>5</a>. The cosmologists followed the theogonists and cosmogonists -in this. No one worshipped Okeanos and Tethys, or even Ouranos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f144'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r144'>144</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 4. 203 b 13 (R. P. 17).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f145'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r145'>145</a>. Theophr. <cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 2 (R. P. 26).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f146'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r146'>146</a>. This follows from a comparison of Diog. ii. 3. with Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 7 -(R. P. 23). In the latter passage we must, however, read τρίτον for πρῶτον -with Diels. The suggestion in R. P. 23 e that Apollodoros mentioned the -Olympiad without giving the number of the year is inadequate; for -Apollodoros did not reckon by Olympiads, but Athenian archons. -Jacoby (p. 194) brings the date of his death into connexion with the -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span> of Pythagoras, which seems to me less probable. Lortzing (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Jahresber.</cite></span>, -1898, p. 202) objects to my view on the ground that the period of a hundred -years plays no part in Apollodoros’s calculations. It will be seen, however, -from Jacoby, pp. 39 sqq., that there is some reason for believing he made -use of the generation of 33⅓ years.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f147'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r147'>147</a>. Diog. ii. 3 (R. P. 23).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f148'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r148'>148</a>. Cf. the statement of Theophrastos above, <a href='#sec13'>§ 13</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f149'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r149'>149</a>. On these monographs see <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 103.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f150'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r150'>150</a>. See the conspectus of extracts from Theophrastos given in <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 135.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f151'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r151'>151</a>. “Felting” (πίλησις) is the regular term for this process with all the -early cosmologists, from whom Plato has taken it (<cite>Tim.</cite> 58 b 4; 76 c 3).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f152'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r152'>152</a>. A more condensed form of the same doxographical tradition is given -by Ps.-Plut. <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 3 (R. P. 25).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f153'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r153'>153</a>. Simplicius, <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 149, 32 (R. P. 26 b), says, according to the MSS., -that Theophrastos spoke of rarefaction and condensation in the case of -Anaximenes <em>alone</em>. We must either suppose with Zeller (p. 193, n. 2) that -this means “alone among the oldest Ionians” or read πρῶτου for μόνου -with Usener. The regular terms are πύκνωσις and ἀραίωσις or μάνωσις. -Plutarch, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de prim. frig.</cite></span> 947 f (R. P. 27), says that Anaximenes used the -term τὸ χαλαρόν for the rarefied air.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f154'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r154'>154</a>. For the meaning of ἀήρ in Homer, see Schmidt, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Synonomik</cite></span>, § 35; and -for its survival in Ionic prose, Hippokrates, Περὶ ἀέρων, ὑδάτων, τόπων, 15, -ἀήρ τε πολὺς κατέχει τὴν χώρην ἀπὸ τῶν ὑδάτων. Plato is still conscious of -the old meaning of the word; for he makes Timaios say ἀέρος (γένη) τὸ μὲν -εὐαγέστατον ἐπίκλην αἰθὴρ καλούμενος, ὁ δὲ θολερώτατος ὁμίχλη καὶ σκότος -(<cite>Tim.</cite> 58 d). The view given in the text has been criticised by Tannery, -<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">“Une nouvelle hypothèse sur Anaximandre”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> viii. pp. 443 sqq.), and -I have slightly altered my expression of it to meet these criticisms. The -point is of fundamental importance, as we shall see, for the interpretation -of Pythagoreanism.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f155'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r155'>155</a>. Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de prim. frig.</cite></span> 947 f (R. P. 27).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f156'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r156'>156</a>. Aet. i. 3, 4 (R. P. 24).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f157'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r157'>157</a>. See Chap. II. <a href='#sec53'>§ 53</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f158'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r158'>158</a>. The text is very corrupt here. I retain ἐκπεπυκνωμένος, because we -are told above that winds are condensed air, and I adopt Zeller’s ἀραιῷ -εἰσφέρηται (p. 246, <a href='#f554'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 554</ins></a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f159'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r159'>159</a>. The source of this is Poseidonios, who used Theophrastos. <cite>Dox.</cite> -p. 231.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f160'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r160'>160</a>. Theodoret (iv. 16) speaks of those who believe in a revolution like that -of a millstone, as contrasted with one like that of a wheel. Diels (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. -46) refers these similes to Anaximenes and Anaximander respectively. -They come, of course, from Aetios (Appendix, <a href='#app1.10'>§ 10</a>), though they are -given neither by Stobaios nor in the <cite>Placita</cite>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f161'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r161'>161</a>. Β, 1. 354 a 28 (R. P. 28 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f162'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r162'>162</a>. We do not know how Anaximenes imagined the “crystalline” sky. -It is probable that he used the word πάγος as Empedokles did. Cf. Chap. -V. <a href='#sec112'>§ 112</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f163'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r163'>163</a>. See Tannery, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Science hellène</cite></span>, p. 153. For the precisely similar bodies -assumed by Anaxagoras, see below, Chap. VI. <a href='#sec135'>§ 135</a>. See further Chap. -VII. <a href='#sec151'>§ 151</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f164'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r164'>164</a>. Cic. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de nat. D.</cite></span> i. 26 (R. P. 28 b). On what follows see Krische, -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Forschungen</cite></span>, pp. 52 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f165'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r165'>165</a>. Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 7, 1 (R. P. 28).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f166'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r166'>166</a>. Aug. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de civ. D.</cite></span> viii. 2: <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“Anaximenes omnes rerum causas infinito -aëri dedit: nec deos negavit aut tacuit; non tamen ab ipsis aërem factum, -sed ipsos ex aëre ortos credidit”</span> (R. P. 28 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f167'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r167'>167</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 1121, 12 (R. P. 28 a). The passage from the <cite>Placita</cite> is -of higher authority than this from Simplicius. Note, further, that it is only -to Anaximenes, Herakleitos, and Diogenes that successive worlds are -ascribed even here. With regard to Anaximander, Simplicius is quite -clear. For the Stoic view of Herakleitos, see Chap. III. <a href='#sec78'>§ 78</a>; and for -Diogenes, Chap. X. <a href='#sec188'>§ 188</a>. That Simplicius is following a Stoic authority -is suggested by the words καὶ ὕστερον οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Στοᾶς. Cf. also Simpl. -<cite>de Caelo</cite>, p. 202, 13.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f168'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r168'>168</a>. In particular, the authority of Anaximenes was so great that both -Leukippos and Demokritos adhered to his theory of a disc-like earth. Cf. -Aet. iii. 10, 3-5 (Περὶ σχήματος γῆς), Ἀναξιμένης τραπεζοειδῆ (τὴν γῆν). -Λεύκιππος τυμπανοειδῆ. Δημόκριτος δισκοειδῆ μὲν τῷ πλάτει, κοίλην δὲ -τῷ μέσῳ. This, in spite of the fact that the spherical form of the earth -was already a commonplace in circles affected by Pythagoreanism.</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_85'>85</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER II <br /> SCIENCE AND RELIGION</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Migrations to the West.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec32'></a>32. So far we have not met with any trace of direct -antagonism between science and popular beliefs, though -the views of the Milesian cosmologists were really as -inconsistent with the religions of the people as with -the mythology of the anthropomorphic poets.<a id='r169' /><a href='#f169' class='c014'><sup>[169]</sup></a> Two -things hastened the conflict—the shifting of the scene -to the West, and the religious revival which swept over -Hellas in the sixth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span></p> - -<p class='c002'>The chief figures in the philosophical history of the -period were Pythagoras of Samos and Xenophanes of -Kolophon. Both were Ionians by birth, and yet both -spent the greater part of their lives in the West. We -see from Herodotos how the Persian advance in Asia -Minor occasioned a series of migrations to Sicily and -Southern Italy;<a id='r170' /><a href='#f170' class='c014'><sup>[170]</sup></a> and this, of course, made a great -difference to philosophy as well as to religion. The -new views had probably grown up so naturally and -gradually in Ionia that the shock of conflict and -reaction was avoided; but that could no longer be so, -when they were transplanted to a region where men -were wholly unprepared to receive them.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_86'>86</span>Another, though a somewhat later, effect of these -migrations was to bring Science into contact with -Rhetoric, one of the most characteristic products of -Western Hellas. Already in Parmenides we may note -the presence of that dialectical and controversial spirit -which was destined to have so great an influence on -Greek thought, and it was just this fusion of the art of -arguing for victory with the search for truth that -before long gave birth to Logic.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The religious revival.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec33'></a>33. Most important of all in its influence on -philosophy was the religious revival which culminated -about this time. The religion of continental Hellas -had developed in a very different way from that of -Ionia. In particular, the worship of Dionysos, which -came from Thrace, and is barely mentioned in Homer, -contained in germ a wholly new way of looking at -man’s relation to the world. It would certainly be -wrong to credit the Thracians themselves with any -very exalted views; but there can be no doubt that, to -the Greeks, the phenomenon of ecstasy suggested that -the soul was something more than a feeble double of -the self, and that it was only when “out of the body” -it could show its true nature.<a id='r171' /><a href='#f171' class='c014'><sup>[171]</sup></a> To a less extent, such -ideas were also suggested by the worship of Demeter, -whose mysteries were celebrated at Eleusis; though, in -later days, these came to take the leading place in -men’s minds. That was because they were incorporated -in the public religion of Athens.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Before the time with which we are dealing, tradition -shows us dimly an age of inspired prophets—Bakides -<span class='pageno' id='Page_87'>87</span>and Sibyls—followed by one of strange medicine-men -like Abaris and Aristeas of Prokonnesos. With -Epimenides of Crete, we touch the fringe of history, -while Pherekydes of Syros is the contemporary of the -early cosmologists, and we still have some fragments -of his discourse. It looked as if Greek religion were -about to enter upon the same stage as that already -reached by the religions of the East; and, but for the -rise of science, it is hard to see what could have checked -this tendency. It is usual to say that the Greeks were -saved from a religion of the Oriental type by their -having no priesthood; but this is to mistake the effect -for the cause. Priesthoods do not make dogmas, -though they preserve them once they are made; and -in the earlier stages of their development, the Oriental -peoples had no priesthoods either in the sense intended.<a id='r172' /><a href='#f172' class='c014'><sup>[172]</sup></a> -It was not so much the absence of a priesthood as the -existence of the scientific schools that saved Greece.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Orphic religion.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec34'></a>34. The new religion—for in one sense it was new, -though in another as old as mankind—reached its -highest point of development with the foundation of -the Orphic communities. So far as we can see, the -original home of these was Attika; but they spread -with extraordinary rapidity, especially in Southern -Italy and Sicily.<a id='r173' /><a href='#f173' class='c014'><sup>[173]</sup></a> They were first of all associations -for the worship of Dionysos; but they were distinguished -by two features which were new among the -Hellenes. They looked to a revelation as the source -<span class='pageno' id='Page_88'>88</span>of religious authority, and they were organised as -artificial communities. The poems which contained -their theology were ascribed to the Thracian Orpheus, -who had himself descended into Hades, and was -therefore a safe guide through the perils which beset -the disembodied soul in the next world. We have -considerable remains of this literature, but they are -mostly of late date, and cannot safely be used as -evidence for the beliefs of the sixth century. We do -know, however, that the leading ideas of Orphicism -were quite early. A number of thin gold plates with -Orphic verses inscribed on them have been discovered -in Southern Italy;<a id='r174' /><a href='#f174' class='c014'><sup>[174]</sup></a> and though these are somewhat -later in date than the period with which we are -dealing, they belong to the time when Orphicism was -a living creed and not a fantastic revival. What can -be made out from them as to the doctrine has a -startling resemblance to the beliefs which were -prevalent in India about the same time, though it -seems impossible that there should have been any -actual contact between India and Greece at this date. -The main purpose of the <cite>Orgia</cite><a id='r175' /><a href='#f175' class='c014'><sup>[175]</sup></a> was to “purify” the -believer’s soul, and so enable it to escape from the -“wheel of birth,” and it was for the better attainment of -this end that the Orphics were organised in communities. -Religious associations must have been known to the -Greeks from a fairly early date;<a id='r176' /><a href='#f176' class='c014'><sup>[176]</sup></a> but the oldest of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_89'>89</span>these were based, at least in theory, on the tie of -kindred blood. What was new was the institution of -communities to which any one might be admitted by -initiation.<a id='r177' /><a href='#f177' class='c014'><sup>[177]</sup></a> This was, in fact, the establishment of -churches, though there is no evidence that these were -connected with each other in such a way that we -could rightly speak of them as a single church. The -Pythagoreans came nearer to realising that.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Philosophy as a Way of Life.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec35'></a>35. We have to take account of the religious -revival here, chiefly because it suggested the view that -philosophy was above all a “way of life.” Science too -was a “purification,” a means of escape from the -“wheel.” This is the view expressed so strongly in -Plato’s <cite>Phaedo</cite>, which was written under the influence -of Pythagorean ideas.<a id='r178' /><a href='#f178' class='c014'><sup>[178]</sup></a> Sokrates became to his -followers the ideal “wise man,” and it was to this side -of his personality the Cynics mainly attached themselves. -From them proceeded the Stoic sage and the Christian -saint, and also the whole brood of impostors whom -Lucian has pilloried for our edification.<a id='r179' /><a href='#f179' class='c014'><sup>[179]</sup></a> Saints and -sages are apt to appear in questionable shapes, and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_90'>90</span>Apollonios of Tyana showed in the end where this -view may lead. It was not wholly absent from any -Greek philosophy after the days of Pythagoras. -Aristotle is as much possessed by it as any one, as we -may see from the Tenth Book of the <cite>Ethics</cite>, and as we -should see still more distinctly if we possessed such -works as the <cite>Protreptikos</cite> in their entirety.<a id='r180' /><a href='#f180' class='c014'><sup>[180]</sup></a> Plato, -indeed, tried to make the ideal wise man of service to -the state and mankind by his doctrine of the philosopher -king. It was he alone, so far as we know, that -insisted on philosophers descending by turns into the -cave from which they had been released and coming -to the help of their former fellow-prisoners.<a id='r181' /><a href='#f181' class='c014'><sup>[181]</sup></a> That was -not, however, the view that prevailed, and the “wise -man” became more and more detached from the -world. Apollonios of Tyana was quite entitled to -regard himself as the spiritual heir of Pythagoras; for -the theurgy and thaumaturgy of the late Greek schools -was but the fruit of the seed sown in the generation -before the Persian Wars.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>No doctrine in the “Mysteries.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec36'></a>36. On the other hand, it would be wrong to -suppose that Orphicism or the Mysteries suggested any -definite doctrines to philosophers, at least during the -period which we are about to consider. We have -admitted that they really implied a new view of the -soul, and we might therefore have expected to find -that they profoundly modified men’s theory of the -world and their relation to it. The striking thing is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_91'>91</span>that this did not happen. Even those philosophers -who were most closely in touch with the religious -movement, like Empedokles and the Pythagoreans, -held views about the soul which really contradicted -the theory implied by their religious practices.<a id='r182' /><a href='#f182' class='c014'><sup>[182]</sup></a> There -is no room for an immortal soul in any philosophy of -this period. Up to Plato’s time immortality was -never treated in a scientific way, but merely assumed -in the Orphic rites, to which Plato half seriously turns -for confirmation of his own teaching.<a id='r183' /><a href='#f183' class='c014'><sup>[183]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>All this is easily accounted for. With us a -religious revival generally means the vivid realisation -of a new or forgotten doctrine, while ancient religion -has properly no doctrine at all. “The initiated,” -Aristotle said, “were not expected to learn anything, -but merely to be affected in a certain way and put -into a certain frame of mind.”<a id='r184' /><a href='#f184' class='c014'><sup>[184]</sup></a> Nothing was required -but that the ritual should be correctly performed, and -the worshipper was free to give any explanation of -it he pleased. It might be as exalted as that of -Pindar and Sophokles, or as material as that of the -itinerant mystery-mongers described by Plato in the -<cite>Republic</cite>. The essential thing was that he should -duly sacrifice his pig.</p> - -<h3 class='c018'>I. <span class='sc'>Pythagoras of Samos</span></h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Character of the tradition.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec37'></a>37. It is no easy task to give an account of Pythagoras -that can claim to be regarded as history. Our -<span class='pageno' id='Page_92'>92</span>principal sources of information<a id='r185' /><a href='#f185' class='c014'><sup>[185]</sup></a> are the Lives composed -by Iamblichos, Porphyry, and Laertios Diogenes. -That of Iamblichos is a wretched compilation, based -chiefly on the work of the arithmetician Nikomachos -of Gerasa in Judaea, and the romance of Apollonios -of Tyana, who regarded himself as a second Pythagoras, -and accordingly took great liberties with his materials.<a id='r186' /><a href='#f186' class='c014'><sup>[186]</sup></a> -Porphyry stands, as a writer, on a far higher level than -Iamblichos; but his authorities do not inspire us with -more confidence. He, too, made use of Nikomachos, -and of a certain novelist called Antonius Diogenes, -author of a work entitled <cite>Marvels from beyond Thule</cite>.<a id='r187' /><a href='#f187' class='c014'><sup>[187]</sup></a> -Diogenes quotes, as usual, a considerable number of -authorities, and the statements he makes must be -estimated according to the nature of the sources from -which they were drawn.<a id='r188' /><a href='#f188' class='c014'><sup>[188]</sup></a> So far, it must be confessed, -our material does not seem promising. Further -examination shows, however, that a good many -fragments of two much older authorities, Aristoxenos -and Dikaiarchos, are embedded in the mass. These -writers were both disciples of Aristotle; they were -natives of Southern Italy, and contemporary with the -last generation of the Pythagorean school. Both -<span class='pageno' id='Page_93'>93</span>wrote accounts of Pythagoras; and Aristoxenos, who -was personally intimate with the last representatives -of scientific Pythagoreanism, also made a collection -of the sayings of his friends. Now the Neopythagorean -story, as we have it in Iamblichos, is a tissue of -incredible and fantastic myths; but, if we sift out -the statements which go back to Aristoxenos and -Dikaiarchos, we can easily construct a rational narrative, -in which Pythagoras appears not as a miracle-monger -and religious innovator, but simply as a moralist and -statesman. We might then be tempted to suppose -that this is the genuine tradition; but that would be -altogether a mistake. There is, in fact, a third and -still earlier stratum in the Lives, and this agrees with -the latest accounts in representing Pythagoras as a -wonder-worker and a religious reformer.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Some of the most striking miracles of Pythagoras -are related on the authority of Andron’s <cite>Tripod</cite>, and -of Aristotle’s work on the Pythagoreans.<a id='r189' /><a href='#f189' class='c014'><sup>[189]</sup></a> Both these -treatises belong to the fourth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, and -are therefore untouched by Neopythagorean fancies. -Further, it is only by assuming the still earlier -existence of this view that we can explain the allusions -of Herodotos. The Hellespontine Greeks told him -that Salmoxis or Zamolxis had been a slave of -Pythagoras,<a id='r190' /><a href='#f190' class='c014'><sup>[190]</sup></a> and Salmoxis is a figure of the same -class as Abaris and Aristeas.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_94'>94</span>It seems, then, that both the oldest and the latest -accounts agree in representing Pythagoras as a man -of the class to which Epimenides and Onomakritos -belonged—in fact, as a sort of “medicine-man”; but, -for some reason, there was an attempt to save his -memory from this imputation, and that attempt -belonged to the fourth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> The significance -of this will appear in the sequel.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Life of Pythagoras.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec38'></a>38. We may be said to know for certain that -Pythagoras passed his early manhood at Samos, and -was the son of Mnesarchos;<a id='r191' /><a href='#f191' class='c014'><sup>[191]</sup></a> and he “flourished,” we -are told, in the reign of Polykrates.<a id='r192' /><a href='#f192' class='c014'><sup>[192]</sup></a> This date -cannot be far wrong; for Herakleitos already speaks -of him in the past tense.<a id='r193' /><a href='#f193' class='c014'><sup>[193]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The extensive travels attributed to Pythagoras by -late writers are, of course, apocryphal. Even the -statement that he visited Egypt, though far from -improbable if we consider the close relations between -Polykrates of Samos and Amasis, rests on no sufficient -authority.<a id='r194' /><a href='#f194' class='c014'><sup>[194]</sup></a> Herodotos, it is true, observes that the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_95'>95</span>Egyptians agreed in certain practices with the rules -called Orphic and Bacchic, which are really Egyptian, -and with the Pythagoreans;<a id='r195' /><a href='#f195' class='c014'><sup>[195]</sup></a> but this does not imply -that the Pythagoreans derived these directly from -Egypt. He says also in another place that the belief -in transmigration came from Egypt, though certain -Greeks, both at an earlier and a later date, had passed -it off as their own. He refuses, however, to give their -names, so he can hardly be referring to Pythagoras.<a id='r196' /><a href='#f196' class='c014'><sup>[196]</sup></a> -Nor does it matter; for the Egyptians did not believe -in transmigration at all, and Herodotos was simply -deceived by the priests or the symbolism of the -monuments.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Aristoxenos said that Pythagoras left Samos in -order to escape from the tyranny of Polykrates.<a id='r197' /><a href='#f197' class='c014'><sup>[197]</sup></a> It -was at Kroton, a city already famous for its medical -school,<a id='r198' /><a href='#f198' class='c014'><sup>[198]</sup></a> that he founded his society. How long he -remained there we do not know; he died at Metapontion, -whither he had retired on the first signal of -revolt against his influence.<a id='r199' /><a href='#f199' class='c014'><sup>[199]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Order.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_96'>96</span><a id='sec39'></a>39. There is no reason to believe that the detailed -statements which have been handed down with regard -to the organisation of the Pythagorean Order rest upon -any historical basis, and in the case of many of them -we can still see how they came to be made. The -distinction of grades within the Order, variously called -<em>Mathematicians</em> and <em>Akousmatics</em>, <em>Esoterics</em> and <em>Exoterics</em>, -<em>Pythagoreans</em> and <em>Pythagorists</em>,<a id='r200' /><a href='#f200' class='c014'><sup>[200]</sup></a> is an invention designed -to explain how there came to be two widely different -sets of people, each calling themselves disciples of -Pythagoras, in the fourth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> So, too, the -statement that the Pythagoreans were bound to -inviolable secrecy, which goes back to Aristoxenos,<a id='r201' /><a href='#f201' class='c014'><sup>[201]</sup></a> -is intended to explain why there is no trace of the -Pythagorean philosophy proper before Philolaos.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The Pythagorean Order was simply, in its origin, a -religious fraternity of the type described above, and not, -as has sometimes been maintained, a political league.<a id='r202' /><a href='#f202' class='c014'><sup>[202]</sup></a> -Nor had it anything to do with the “Dorian aristocratic -<span class='pageno' id='Page_97'>97</span>ideal.” Pythagoras was an Ionian, and the Order was -originally confined to Achaian states.<a id='r203' /><a href='#f203' class='c014'><sup>[203]</sup></a> Nor is there the -slightest evidence that the Pythagoreans favoured the -aristocratic rather than the democratic party.<a id='r204' /><a href='#f204' class='c014'><sup>[204]</sup></a> The -main purpose of the Order was to secure for its own -members a more adequate satisfaction of the religious -instinct than that supplied by the State religion. It -was, in fact, an institution for the cultivation of holiness. -In this respect it resembled an Orphic society, -though it seems that Apollo, rather than Dionysos, -was the chief Pythagorean god. That is doubtless -why the Krotoniates identified Pythagoras with Apollo -Hyperboreios.<a id='r205' /><a href='#f205' class='c014'><sup>[205]</sup></a> From the nature of the case, however, -an independent society within a Greek state was apt -to be brought into conflict with the larger body. The -<span class='pageno' id='Page_98'>98</span>only way in which it could then assert its right to -exist was by identifying the State with itself, that is, -by securing the control of the sovereign power. The -history of the Pythagorean Order, so far as it can be -traced, is, accordingly, the history of an attempt to -supersede the State; and its political action is to be -explained as a mere incident of that attempt.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Downfall of the Order.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec40'></a>40. For a time the new Order seems actually to -have succeeded in securing the supreme power, but -reaction came at last. Under the leadership of Kylon, -a wealthy noble, Kroton was able to assert itself -victoriously against the Pythagorean domination. This, -we may well believe, had been galling enough. The -“rule of the saints” would be nothing to it; and we -can still imagine and sympathise with the irritation felt -by the plain man of those days at having his legislation -done for him by a set of incomprehensible pedants, who -made a point of abstaining from beans, and would not -let him beat his own dog because they recognised in -its howls the voice of a departed friend (Xenophanes, -fr. 7). This feeling would be aggravated by the private -religious worship of the Society. Greek states could -never pardon the introduction of new gods. Their -objection to this was not, however, that the gods in -question were false gods. If they had been, it would -not have mattered so much. What they could not -tolerate was that any one should establish a private -means of communication between himself and the -unseen powers. That introduced an unknown and -incalculable element into the arrangements of the -State, which might very likely be hostile to those citizens -who had no means of propitiating the intruding divinity.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Aristoxenos’s version of the events which led to the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_99'>99</span>downfall of the Pythagorean Order is given at length -by Iamblichos. According to this, Pythagoras had -refused to receive Kylon into his Society, and he therefore -became a bitter foe of the Order. From this -cause Pythagoras removed from Kroton to Metapontion, -where he died. The Pythagoreans, however, still -retained possession of the government of Kroton, till -at last the partisans of Kylon set fire to Milo’s house, -where they were assembled. Of those in the house -only two, Archippos and Lysis, escaped. Archippos -retired to Taras; Lysis, first to Achaia and then to -Thebes, where he became later on the teacher of -Epameinondas. The Pythagoreans who remained -concentrated themselves at Rhegion; but, as things went -from bad to worse, they all left Italy except Archippos.<a id='r206' /><a href='#f206' class='c014'><sup>[206]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>This account has all the air of being historical. -The mention of Lysis proves, however, that those -events were spread over more than one generation. -The <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>coup d’état</i></span> of Kroton can hardly have occurred -before 450 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, if the teacher of Epameinondas -escaped from it, and it may well have been even later. -But it must have been before 410 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> that the -Pythagoreans left Rhegion for Hellas; Philolaos was -certainly at Thebes about that time.<a id='r207' /><a href='#f207' class='c014'><sup>[207]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_100'>100</span>The political power of the Pythagoreans as an -Order was now gone for ever, though we shall see that -some of them returned to Italy at a later date. In -exile they seem to have dropped the merely magical -and superstitious parts of their system, and this enabled -them to take their place as one of the scientific schools -of Hellas.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Want of evidence as to the teaching of Pythagoras.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec41'></a>41. Of the opinions of Pythagoras we know even -less than of his life. Aristotle clearly knew nothing -for certain of ethical or physical doctrines going back -to the founder of the Society himself.<a id='r208' /><a href='#f208' class='c014'><sup>[208]</sup></a> Aristoxenos -only gave a string of moral precepts.<a id='r209' /><a href='#f209' class='c014'><sup>[209]</sup></a> Dikaiarchos is -quoted by Porphyry as asserting that hardly anything -of what Pythagoras taught his disciples was known -except the doctrine of transmigration, the periodic -cycle, and the kinship of all living creatures.<a id='r210' /><a href='#f210' class='c014'><sup>[210]</sup></a> The -fact is, that, like all teachers who introduce a new way -of living rather than a new view of the world, Pythagoras -preferred oral instruction to the dissemination of his -opinions by writing, and it was not till Alexandrian -times that any one ventured to forge books in his -<span class='pageno' id='Page_101'>101</span>name. The writings ascribed to the earliest Pythagoreans -were also forgeries of the same period.<a id='r211' /><a href='#f211' class='c014'><sup>[211]</sup></a> The -early history of Pythagoreanism is, therefore, wholly -conjectural; but we may still make an attempt to -understand, in a very general way, what the position -of Pythagoras in the history of Greek thought must -have been.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Transmigration.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec42'></a>42. In the first place, then, there can be no doubt -that he really taught the doctrine of transmigration.<a id='r212' /><a href='#f212' class='c014'><sup>[212]</sup></a> -The story told by the Greeks of the Hellespont and -Pontos as to his relations with Salmoxis could never -have gained currency by the time of Herodotos if he -had not been known as a man who taught strange -views of the life after death.<a id='r213' /><a href='#f213' class='c014'><sup>[213]</sup></a> Now the doctrine of -transmigration is most easily to be explained as a -development of the savage belief in the kinship of men -and beasts, as all alike children of the Earth,<a id='r214' /><a href='#f214' class='c014'><sup>[214]</sup></a> a view -which Dikaiarchos said Pythagoras certainly held. -Further, among savages, this belief is commonly -associated with a system of taboos on certain kinds of -food, and the Pythagorean rule is best known for its -prescription of similar forms of abstinence. This in -itself goes far to show that it originated in the same -ideas, and we have seen that the revival of these would -be quite natural in connexion with the foundation of -a new religious society. There is a further consideration -<span class='pageno' id='Page_102'>102</span>which tells strongly in the same direction. In -India we have a precisely similar doctrine, and yet it -is not possible to assume any actual borrowing of -Indian ideas at this date. The only explanation -which will account for the facts is that the two systems -were independently evolved from the same primitive -ideas. These are found in many parts of the world; -but it seems to have been only in India and in Greece -that they were developed into an elaborate doctrine.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Abstinence.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec43'></a>43. It has indeed been doubted whether we have -a right to accept what we are told by such late writers -as Porphyry on the subject of Pythagorean abstinence. -Aristoxenos, whom we have admitted to be one of our -earliest witnesses, may be cited to prove that the -original Pythagoreans knew nothing of these restrictions -on the use of animal flesh and beans. He -undoubtedly said that Pythagoras did not abstain from -animal flesh in general, but only from that of the -ploughing ox and the ram.<a id='r215' /><a href='#f215' class='c014'><sup>[215]</sup></a> He also said that Pythagoras -preferred beans to every other vegetable, as being -the most laxative, and that he was partial to sucking-pigs -and tender kids.<a id='r216' /><a href='#f216' class='c014'><sup>[216]</sup></a> Aristoxenos, however, is a witness -who very often breaks down under cross-examination, -and the palpable exaggeration of these statements -shows that he is endeavouring to combat a belief -<span class='pageno' id='Page_103'>103</span>which existed in his own day. We are therefore able -to show, out of his own mouth, that the tradition which -made the Pythagoreans abstain from animal flesh and -beans goes back to a time long before there were any -Neopythagoreans interested in upholding it. Still, it -may be asked what motive Aristoxenos could have had -for denying the common belief? The answer is simple -and instructive. He had been the friend of the last -of the Pythagoreans; and, in their time, the merely -superstitious part of Pythagoreanism had been dropped, -except by some zealots whom the heads of the Society -refused to acknowledge. That is why he represents -Pythagoras himself in so different a light from both -the older and the later traditions; it is because he -gives us the view of the more enlightened sect of the -Order. Those who clung faithfully to the old practices -were now regarded as heretics, and all manner of -theories were set on foot to account for their existence. -It was related, for instance, that they descended from -one of the “Akousmatics,” who had never been initiated -into the deeper mysteries of the “Mathematicians.”<a id='r217' /><a href='#f217' class='c014'><sup>[217]</sup></a> -All this, however, is pure invention. The satire of the -poets of the Middle Comedy proves clearly enough -that, even though the friends of Aristoxenos did not -practise abstinence, there were plenty of people in the -fourth century, calling themselves followers of Pythagoras, -who did.<a id='r218' /><a href='#f218' class='c014'><sup>[218]</sup></a> History has not been kind to the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_104'>104</span>Akousmatics, but they never wholly died out. The -names of Diodoros of Aspendos and Nigidius Figulus -help to bridge the gulf between them and Apollonios -of Tyana.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We know, then, that Pythagoras taught the kinship -of beasts and men, and we infer that his rule of -abstinence from flesh was based, not upon humanitarian -or ascetic grounds, but on taboo. This is strikingly -confirmed by a fact which we are told in Porphyry’s -<cite>Defence of Abstinence</cite>. The statement in question does -not indeed go back to Theophrastos, as so much of -Porphyry’s tract certainly does;<a id='r219' /><a href='#f219' class='c014'><sup>[219]</sup></a> but it is, in all -probability, due to Herakleides of Pontos, and is to the -effect that, though the Pythagoreans did as a rule -abstain from flesh, they nevertheless ate it when they -sacrificed to the gods.<a id='r220' /><a href='#f220' class='c014'><sup>[220]</sup></a> Now, among savage peoples, -we often find that the sacred animal is slain and eaten -<span class='pageno' id='Page_105'>105</span>sacramentally by its kinsmen on certain solemn -occasions, though in ordinary circumstances this would -be the greatest of all impieties. Here, again, we have -to do with a very primitive belief; and we need not -therefore attach any weight to the denials of -Aristoxenos.<a id='r221' /><a href='#f221' class='c014'><sup>[221]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'><em>Akousmata.</em></div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec44'></a>44. We shall now know what to think of the various -Pythagorean rules and precepts which have come down -to us. These are of two kinds, and have very different -sources. Some of them, derived from the collection of -Aristoxenos, and for the most part preserved by -Iamblichos, are mere precepts of morality. They do -not pretend to go back to Pythagoras himself; they -are only the sayings which the last generation of -“Mathematicians” heard from their predecessors.<a id='r222' /><a href='#f222' class='c014'><sup>[222]</sup></a> The -second class is of a very different nature, and the sayings -which belong to it are called <em>Akousmata</em>,<a id='r223' /><a href='#f223' class='c014'><sup>[223]</sup></a> which points -to their being the property of that sect of Pythagoreans -which had faithfully preserved the old customs. Later -writers interpret them as “symbols” of moral truth; -but their interpretations are extremely far-fetched, and -it does not require a very practised eye to see that -they are genuine taboos of a thoroughly primitive type. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_106'>106</span>I give a few examples in order that the reader may -judge what the famous Pythagorean rule of life was -really like.</p> - - <ul class='ul_2'> - <li>1. To abstain from beans. - - </li> - <li>2. Not to pick up what has fallen. - - </li> - <li>3. Not to touch a white cock. - - </li> - <li>4. Not to break bread. - - </li> - <li>5. Not to step over a crossbar. - - </li> - <li>6. Not to stir the fire with iron. - - </li> - <li>7. Not to eat from a whole loaf. - - </li> - <li>8. Not to pluck a garland. - - </li> - <li>9. Not to sit on a quart measure. - - </li> - <li>10. Not to eat the heart. - - </li> - <li>11. Not to walk on highways. - - </li> - <li>12. Not to let swallows share one’s roof. - - </li> - <li>13. When the pot is taken off the fire, not to leave the mark of it in the ashes, but - to stir them together. - - </li> - <li>14. Do not look in a mirror beside a light. - - </li> - <li>15. When you rise from the bedclothes, roll them together and smooth out the impress - of the body. - </li> - </ul> - -<p class='c002'>It would be easy to multiply proofs of the close -connexion between Pythagoreanism and primitive -modes of thought, but what has been said is really -sufficient for our purpose. The kinship of men and -beasts, the abstinence from flesh, and the doctrine of -transmigration all hang together and form a perfectly -intelligible whole from the point of view which has been -indicated.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Pythagoras as a man of science.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec45'></a>45. Were this all, we should be tempted to delete -the name of Pythagoras from the history of philosophy -altogether, and relegate him to the class of “medicine-men” -(γόητες) along with Epimenides and Onomakritos. -This, however, would be quite wrong. As we shall see, -the Pythagorean Society became one of the chief scientific -schools of Hellas, and it is certain that Pythagorean -<span class='pageno' id='Page_107'>107</span>science as well as Pythagorean religion originated with -the master himself. Herakleitos, who is not partial to -him, says that Pythagoras had pursued scientific -investigation further than other men, though he also -says that he turned his much learning into an art of -mischief.<a id='r224' /><a href='#f224' class='c014'><sup>[224]</sup></a> Herodotos called Pythagoras “by no -means the weakest sophist of the Hellenes,” a title -which at this date does not imply the slightest -disparagement.<a id='r225' /><a href='#f225' class='c014'><sup>[225]</sup></a> Aristotle even said that Pythagoras -first busied himself with mathematics and numbers, and -that it was later on he attached himself to the miracle-mongering -of Pherekydes.<a id='r226' /><a href='#f226' class='c014'><sup>[226]</sup></a> Is it possible for us to -trace any connexion between these two sides of his -activity?</p> - -<p class='c002'>We have seen that the aim of the Orphic and other -<cite>Orgia</cite> was to obtain release from the “wheel of birth” -by means of “purifications,” which were generally of -a very primitive type. The new thing in the Society -founded by Pythagoras seems to have been that, while -it admitted all these half-savage customs, it at the -same time suggested a more exalted idea of what -“purification” really was. Aristoxenos tells us that -the Pythagoreans employed music to purge the soul -as they used medicine to purge the body, and it is -abundantly clear that Aristotle’s famous theory of -κάθαρσις is derived from Pythagorean sources.<a id='r227' /><a href='#f227' class='c014'><sup>[227]</sup></a> Such -<span class='pageno' id='Page_108'>108</span>methods of purifying the soul were familiar in the <cite>Orgia</cite> -of the Korybantes, and will serve to explain the -Pythagorean interest in Harmonics. But there is more -than this. If we can trust Herakleides so far, it was -Pythagoras who first distinguished the “three lives,” -the Theoretic, the Practical, and the Apolaustic, which -Aristotle made use of in the <cite>Ethics</cite>. The general -theory of these lives is clear, and it is impossible to -doubt that in substance it belongs to the very beginning -of the school. It is to this effect. We are strangers in -this world, and the body is the tomb of the soul, and yet -we must not seek to escape by self-murder; for we are -the chattels of God who is our herdsman, and without -his command we have no right to make our escape.<a id='r228' /><a href='#f228' class='c014'><sup>[228]</sup></a> -In this life, there are three kinds of men, just as there -are three sorts of people who come to the Olympic -Games. The lowest class is made up of those who -come to buy and sell, and next above them are those -who come to compete. Best of all, however, are those -who come simply to look on (θεωρεῖν). The greatest -purification of all is, therefore, disinterested science, and -it is the man who devotes himself to that, the true -philosopher, who has most effectually released himself -from the “wheel of birth.” It would be rash to say -that Pythagoras expressed himself exactly in this -manner; but all these ideas are genuinely Pythagorean, -and it is only in some such way that we can bridge -the gulf which separates Pythagoras the man of science -<span class='pageno' id='Page_109'>109</span>from Pythagoras the religious teacher.<a id='r229' /><a href='#f229' class='c014'><sup>[229]</sup></a> We must now -endeavour to discover how much of the later Pythagorean -science may reasonably be ascribed to Pythagoras -himself.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Arithmetic.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec46'></a>46. In his treatise on Arithmetic, Aristoxenos said -that Pythagoras was the first to carry that study -beyond the needs of commerce,<a id='r230' /><a href='#f230' class='c014'><sup>[230]</sup></a> and his statement is -confirmed by everything we otherwise know. By the -end of the fifth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, we find that there is a -widespread interest in such subjects and that these are -studied for their own sake. Now this new interest -cannot have been wholly the work of a school; it must -have originated with some great man, and there is no -one but Pythagoras to whom we can refer it. As, -however, he wrote nothing, we have no sure means of -distinguishing his own teaching from that of his -followers in the next generation or two. All we can -safely say is that, the more primitive any Pythagorean -doctrine appears, the more likely it is to be that of -Pythagoras himself, and all the more so if it can be -shown to have points of contact with views which we -<span class='pageno' id='Page_110'>110</span>know to have been held in his own time or shortly -before it. In particular, when we find the later -Pythagoreans teaching things that were already something -of an anachronism in their own day, we may be -reasonably sure that we are dealing with survivals -which only the authority of the master’s name could -have preserved. Some of these must be mentioned at -once, though the developed system belongs to a later -part of our story. It is only by separating its earliest -form from its later that the true place of Pythagoreanism -in Greek thought can be made clear, though we must -always remember that no one can now pretend to -draw the line between its successive stages with any -certainty.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The figures.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec47'></a>47. Now one of the most remarkable statements -that we have about Pythagoreanism is what we are told -of Eurytos on the unimpeachable authority of Archytas. -Eurytos was the disciple of Philolaos, and Aristoxenos -expressly mentioned him along with Philolaos as -having taught the last of the Pythagoreans, the men -with whom he himself was personally acquainted. He -therefore belongs to the beginning of the fourth century -<span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, by which time the Pythagorean system was fully -developed, and he was no eccentric enthusiast, but one -of the foremost men in the school.<a id='r231' /><a href='#f231' class='c014'><sup>[231]</sup></a> We are told -of him, then, that he used to give the number of -all sorts of things, such as horses and men, and -that he demonstrated these by arranging pebbles -in a certain way. It is to be noted further that -Aristotle compares his procedure to that of those -<span class='pageno' id='Page_111'>111</span>who bring numbers into figures like the triangle and -the square.<a id='r232' /><a href='#f232' class='c014'><sup>[232]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Now these statements, and especially the remark of -Aristotle last quoted, seem to imply the existence at -this date, and earlier, of a numerical symbolism quite -distinct from the alphabetical notation on the one hand -and from the Euclidean representation of numbers by -lines on the other. The former was inconvenient for -arithmetical purposes, just because the zero was one of -the few things the Greeks did not invent, and they -were therefore unable to develop a really serviceable -numerical symbolism based on position. The latter, -as will appear shortly, is intimately bound up with -that absorption of arithmetic by geometry, which is at -least as old as Plato, but cannot be primitive.<a id='r233' /><a href='#f233' class='c014'><sup>[233]</sup></a> It -seems rather that numbers were represented by dots -arranged in symmetrical and easily recognised patterns, -of which the marking of dice or dominoes gives us the -best idea. And these markings are, in fact, the best -proof that this is a genuinely primitive method of -indicating numbers; for they are of unknown antiquity, -and go back to the time when men could only count by -arranging numbers in such patterns, each of which became, -as it were, a fresh unit. This way of counting may well -be as old as reckoning with the fingers, or even older.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_112'>112</span>It is, therefore, very significant that we do not find -any adequate account of what Aristotle can have meant -by “those who bring numbers into figures like the -triangle and the square” till we come to certain late -writers who called themselves Pythagoreans, and -revived the study of arithmetic as a science independent -of geometry. These men not only abandoned -the linear symbolism of Euclid, but also regarded the -alphabetical notation, which they did use, as something -conventional, and inadequate to represent the true -nature of number. Nikomachos of Gerasa says expressly -that the letters used to represent numbers are -only significant by human usage and convention. The -most natural way would be to represent linear or prime -numbers by a row of units, polygonal numbers by units -arranged so as to mark out the various plane figures, -and solid numbers by units disposed in pyramids and -so forth.<a id='r234' /><a href='#f234' class='c014'><sup>[234]</sup></a> He therefore gives us figures like this:—</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div> α α α α</div> - <div> α α α ααα </div> - <div>α α α α α α α α</div> - <div> α α α α ααα </div> - <div> α α α α α</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Now it ought to be obvious that this is no innovation, -but, like so many things in Neopythagoreanism, a -reversion to primitive usage. Of course the employment -of the letter <em>alpha</em> to represent the units is derived -from the conventional notation; but otherwise we are -clearly in presence of something which belongs to the -very earliest stage of the science—something, in fact, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_113'>113</span>which gives the only possible clue to the meaning of -Aristotle’s remark, and to what we are told of the -method of Eurytos.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Triangular, square, and oblong numbers.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec48'></a>48. This is still further confirmed by the tradition -which represents the great revelation made by Pythagoras -to mankind as having been precisely a figure of -this kind, namely the <em>tetraktys</em>, by which the Pythagoreans -used to swear,<a id='r235' /><a href='#f235' class='c014'><sup>[235]</sup></a> and we have no less an -authority than Speusippos for holding that the whole -theory which it implies was genuinely Pythagorean.<a id='r236' /><a href='#f236' class='c014'><sup>[236]</sup></a> -In later days there were many kinds of <em>tetraktys</em>,<a id='r237' /><a href='#f237' class='c014'><sup>[237]</sup></a> but -the original one, that by which the Pythagoreans -swore, was the “tetraktys of the dekad.” It was a -figure like this—</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div>•</div> - <div>• •</div> - <div>• • •</div> - <div>• • • •</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c020'>and represented the number ten as the triangle of four. -In other words, it showed at a glance that 1 + 2 + 3 + -4 = 10. Speusippos tells us of several properties -which the Pythagoreans discovered in the dekad. It -is, for instance, the first number that has in it an equal -number of prime and composite numbers. How much -<span class='pageno' id='Page_114'>114</span>of this goes back to Pythagoras himself, we cannot -tell; but we are probably justified in referring to him -the conclusion that it is “according to nature” that all -Hellenes and barbarians count up to ten and then -begin over again.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is obvious that the <em>tetraktys</em> may be indefinitely -extended so as to exhibit the sums of the series of -successive numbers in a graphic form, and these sums -are accordingly called “triangular numbers.”</p> - -<p class='c002'>For similar reasons, the sums of the series of -successive odd numbers are called “square numbers,” -and those of successive even numbers “oblong.” If -odd numbers are added to the unit in the form of -<em>gnomons</em>, the result is always a similar figure, namely a -square, while, if even numbers are added, we get a -series of rectangles,<a id='r238' /><a href='#f238' class='c014'><sup>[238]</sup></a> as shown by the figure:—</p> - -<table class='table1' summary=''> -<colgroup> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='19%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -</colgroup> - <tr> - <td class='c021' colspan='3'><span class='small'>Square Numbers.</span></td> - <td class='c021'> </td> - <td class='c011' colspan='4'><span class='small'>Oblong Numbers.</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c021 bt'>•</td> - <td class='c021 bt'>•</td> - <td class='c021 brt1'>•</td> - <td class='c021'> </td> - <td class='c021 bt'>•</td> - <td class='c021 bt'>•</td> - <td class='c021 bt'>•</td> - <td class='c011 brt1'>•</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c021 bt'>•</td> - <td class='c021 brt1'>•</td> - <td class='c021 br'>•</td> - <td class='c021'> </td> - <td class='c021 bt'>•</td> - <td class='c021 bt'>•</td> - <td class='c021 brt1'>•</td> - <td class='c011 br'>•</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c021 brt1'> •</td> - <td class='c021 br'>•</td> - <td class='c021 br'>•</td> - <td class='c021'> </td> - <td class='c021 bt'>•</td> - <td class='c021 brt1'>•</td> - <td class='c021 br'>•</td> - <td class='c011 br'>•</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class='c020'>It is clear, then, that we are entitled to refer the -study of sums of series to Pythagoras himself; but -<span class='pageno' id='Page_115'>115</span>whether he went beyond the oblong, and studied -pyramidal or cubic numbers, we cannot say.<a id='r239' /><a href='#f239' class='c014'><sup>[239]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Geometry and harmonics.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec49'></a>49. It is easy to see how this way of representing -numbers would suggest problems of a geometrical -nature. The dots which stand for the pebbles are -regularly called “boundary-stones” (ὅροι, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>termini</i></span>, -“terms”), and the area which they occupy, or rather -mark out, is the “field” (χώρα).<a id='r240' /><a href='#f240' class='c014'><sup>[240]</sup></a> This is evidently -a very early way of speaking, and may therefore be -referred to Pythagoras himself. Now it must have -struck him that “fields” could be compared as well as -numbers,<a id='r241' /><a href='#f241' class='c014'><sup>[241]</sup></a> and it is even likely that he knew the rough -methods of doing this which were traditional in Egypt, -though certainly these would fail to satisfy him. -Once more the tradition is singularly helpful in suggesting -the direction that his thoughts must have taken. -He knew, of course, the use of the triangle 3, 4, 5 in -constructing right angles. We have seen (p. 24) that -it was familiar in the East from a very early date, and -that Thales introduced it to the Hellenes, if they did -not know it already. In later writers it is actually -called the “Pythagorean triangle.” Now the Pythagorean -proposition <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>par excellence</i></span> is just that, in a right-angled -triangle, the square on the hypotenuse is equal -<span class='pageno' id='Page_116'>116</span>to the squares on the other two sides, and the so-called -Pythagorean triangle is the application of its -converse to a particular case. The very name -“hypotenuse” affords strong confirmation of the intimate -connexion between the two things. It means -literally “the cord stretching over against,” and this is -surely just the rope of the “harpedonapt.”<a id='r242' /><a href='#f242' class='c014'><sup>[242]</sup></a> An early -tradition says that Pythagoras sacrificed an ox when -he discovered the proof of this proposition, and indeed -it was the real foundation of scientific mathematics.<a id='r243' /><a href='#f243' class='c014'><sup>[243]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Incommensurability.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec50'></a>50. One great disappointment, however, awaited -Pythagoras. It follows at once from the Pythagorean -proposition that the square on the diagonal of a square -is double the square on its side, and this ought surely -to be capable of numerical expression. As a matter -of fact, however, there is no square number which can -be divided into two equal square numbers, and so the -problem cannot be solved. In this sense, it is doubtless -true that Pythagoras discovered the incommensurability -of the diagonal and the side of a square, and the proof -mentioned by Aristotle, namely, that, if they were -commensurable, we should have to say that an even -number was equal to an odd number, is distinctly -Pythagorean in character.<a id='r244' /><a href='#f244' class='c014'><sup>[244]</sup></a> However that may be, it -<span class='pageno' id='Page_117'>117</span>is certain that Pythagoras did not care to pursue the -subject any further. He had, as it were, stumbled -on the fact that the square root of two is a surd, but -we know that it was left for Plato’s friends, Theodoros -of Kyrene and Theaitetos, to give a complete theory -of the matter.<a id='r245' /><a href='#f245' class='c014'><sup>[245]</sup></a> The fact is that the discovery of the -Pythagorean proposition, by giving birth to geometry, -had really superseded the old view of quantity as a -sum of units; but it was not till Plato’s time that the -full consequences of this were seen.<a id='r246' /><a href='#f246' class='c014'><sup>[246]</sup></a> For the present, -the incommensurability of the diagonal and the square -remained, as has been said, a “scandalous exception.” -Our tradition says that Hippasos of Metapontion was -drowned at sea for revealing this skeleton in the -cupboard.<a id='r247' /><a href='#f247' class='c014'><sup>[247]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Proportion and harmony.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec51'></a>51. These last considerations show that, while it is -quite safe to attribute the substance of the First Book -of Euclid to Pythagoras, the arithmetic of Books VII.-IX., -and the “geometrical algebra” of Book II. are -certainly not his. They operate with lines or with -areas instead of with units, and the relations which they -establish therefore hold good whether they are capable -of numerical expression or not. That is doubtless why -arithmetic is not treated in Euclid till after plane -geometry, a complete inversion of the original order. -For the same reason, the doctrine of proportion which -we find in Euclid cannot be Pythagorean, and is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_118'>118</span>indeed the work of Eudoxos. Yet it is clear that the -early Pythagoreans, and probably Pythagoras himself, -studied proportion in their own way, and that the three -“medieties” in particular go back to the founder, -especially as the most complicated of them, the -“harmonic,” stands in close relation to his discovery of -the octave. If we take the harmonic proportion -12 : 8 : 6,<a id='r248' /><a href='#f248' class='c014'><sup>[248]</sup></a> we find that 12 : 6 is the octave, 12 : 8 the -fifth, and 8 : 6 the fourth, and it can hardly be doubted -that it was Pythagoras himself who discovered these -intervals. The stories which have come down to us -about his observing the harmonic intervals in a smithy, -and then weighing the hammers that produced them, -or of his suspending weights corresponding to those of -the hammers to equal strings, are, indeed, impossible -and absurd; but it is sheer waste of time to rationalise -them.<a id='r249' /><a href='#f249' class='c014'><sup>[249]</sup></a> For our purpose their absurdity is their chief -merit. They are not stories which any Greek -mathematician or musician could possibly have invented, -but genuine popular tales bearing witness to -the existence of a real tradition that Pythagoras was -the author of this momentous discovery.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Things are numbers.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec52'></a>52. It was this too, no doubt, that led Pythagoras to -say all things were numbers. We shall see that, at a -later date, the Pythagoreans identified these numbers -with geometrical figures; but the mere fact that they -<span class='pageno' id='Page_119'>119</span>called them “numbers,” when taken in connexion with -what we are told about the method of Eurytos, is -sufficient to show this was not the original sense of -the doctrine. It is enough to suppose that Pythagoras -reasoned somewhat as follows. If musical sounds can -be reduced to numbers, why should not everything -else? There are many likenesses to number in things, -and it may well be that a lucky experiment, like that -by which the octave was discovered, will reveal their -true numerical nature. The Neopythagorean writers, -going back in this as in other matters to the earliest -tradition of the school, indulge their fancy in tracing -out analogies between things and numbers in endless -variety; but we are fortunately dispensed from -following them in these vagaries. Aristotle tells us -distinctly that the Pythagoreans explained only a -few things by means of numbers,<a id='r250' /><a href='#f250' class='c014'><sup>[250]</sup></a> which means that -Pythagoras himself left no developed doctrine on the subject, -while the Pythagoreans of the fifth century did not -care to add anything of the sort to the school tradition. -Aristotle does imply, however, that, according to them -the “right time” (καιρός) was seven, justice was four, -and marriage three. These identifications, with a few -others like them, we may safely refer to Pythagoras or -his immediate successors; but we must not attach -much importance to them. They are mere sports of -the analogical fancy. If we wish to understand the -cosmology of Pythagoras, we must start, not from -them, but from any statements we can find that -present points of contact with the teaching of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_120'>120</span>Milesian school. These, we may fairly infer, belong -to the system in its most primitive form.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Cosmology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec53'></a>53. Now the most striking statement of this kind is -one of Aristotle’s. The Pythagoreans held, he tells us, -that there was “boundless breath” outside the heavens, -and that it was inhaled by the world.<a id='r251' /><a href='#f251' class='c014'><sup>[251]</sup></a> In substance, -this is the doctrine of Anaximenes, and it becomes -practically certain that it was that of Pythagoras, -when we find that Xenophanes denied it.<a id='r252' /><a href='#f252' class='c014'><sup>[252]</sup></a> We may -infer, then, that the further development of the idea is -also due to Pythagoras himself. We are told that, after -the first unit had been formed—however that may -have taken place—the nearest part of the Boundless -was first drawn in and limited;<a id='r253' /><a href='#f253' class='c014'><sup>[253]</sup></a> and further, that it is -just the Boundless thus inhaled that keeps the units -separate from each other.<a id='r254' /><a href='#f254' class='c014'><sup>[254]</sup></a> It represents the interval -between them. This is a very primitive way of -describing the nature of discrete quantity.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In the passages of Aristotle just referred to, the -Boundless is also spoken of as the void or empty. -This identification of air and the void is a confusion -which we have already met with in Anaximenes, and -it need not surprise us to find it here too.<a id='r255' /><a href='#f255' class='c014'><sup>[255]</sup></a> We find -<span class='pageno' id='Page_121'>121</span>also, as we might expect, distinct traces of the other -confusion, that of air and vapour. It seems certain, -in fact, that Pythagoras identified the Limit with fire, -and the Boundless with darkness. We are told by -Aristotle that Hippasos made Fire the first principle,<a id='r256' /><a href='#f256' class='c014'><sup>[256]</sup></a> -and we shall see that Parmenides, in discussing the -opinions of his contemporaries, attributes to them the -view that there were two primary “forms,” Fire and -Night.<a id='r257' /><a href='#f257' class='c014'><sup>[257]</sup></a> We also find that Light and Darkness appear -in the Pythagorean table of opposites under the heads -of the Limit and the Unlimited respectively.<a id='r258' /><a href='#f258' class='c014'><sup>[258]</sup></a> The -identification of breath with darkness here implied is a -strong proof of the primitive character of the doctrine; -for in the sixth century darkness was supposed to be a -sort of vapour, while in the fifth, its true nature was -well known. Plato, with his usual historical tact, -makes the Pythagorean Timaios describe mist and -darkness as condensed air.<a id='r259' /><a href='#f259' class='c014'><sup>[259]</sup></a> We must think, then, of -a “field” of darkness or breath marked out by luminous -units, an imagination which the starry heavens would -naturally suggest. It is even probable that we should -ascribe to Pythagoras the Milesian view of a plurality -of worlds, though it would not have been natural for -him to speak of an infinite number. We know, at -least, that Petron, one of the early Pythagoreans, said -there were just a hundred and eighty-three worlds -arranged in a triangle;<a id='r260' /><a href='#f260' class='c014'><sup>[260]</sup></a> and Plato makes Timaios -<span class='pageno' id='Page_122'>122</span>admit, when laying down that there is only one world, -that something might be urged in favour of the view -that there are five, as there are five regular solids.<a id='r261' /><a href='#f261' class='c014'><sup>[261]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The heavenly bodies.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec54'></a>54. Anaximander had regarded the heavenly bodies -as wheels of “air” filled with fire which escapes -through certain openings (<a href='#sec19'>§ 19</a>), and there is evidence -that Pythagoras adopted the same view.<a id='r262' /><a href='#f262' class='c014'><sup>[262]</sup></a> We have -seen that Anaximander only assumed the existence of -three such wheels, and held that the wheel of the sun -was the lowest. It is extremely probable that -Pythagoras identified the intervals between these rings -with the three musical intervals which he had -discovered, the fourth, the fifth, and the octave. That -would be the most natural beginning for the later -doctrine of the “harmony of the spheres,” though that -expression would be doubly misleading if applied to -any theory we can properly ascribe to Pythagoras -himself. The word ἁρμονία does not mean harmony, -and the “spheres” are an anachronism. We are still -at the stage when wheels or rings were considered -sufficient to account for the motions of the heavenly -bodies. It is also to be observed that sun, moon, -planets, and fixed stars must all be regarded as moving -in the same direction from east to west. Pythagoras -certainly did not ascribe to the planets an orbital motion -of their own from west to east. The old idea was rather -that they were left behind more or less every day. As -compared with the fixed stars, Saturn is left behind -least of all, and the Moon most; so, instead of saying -<span class='pageno' id='Page_123'>123</span>that the Moon took a shorter time than Saturn to -complete its path through the signs of the Zodiac, men -said Saturn travelled quicker than the Moon, because -it more nearly succeeds in keeping up with the signs. -Instead of holding that Saturn takes thirty years to -complete its revolution, they said it took the fixed stars -thirty years to pass Saturn, and only twenty-nine days -and a half to pass the Moon. This is one of the -most important points to bear in mind regarding the -planetary systems of the Greeks, and we shall return -to it again.<a id='r263' /><a href='#f263' class='c014'><sup>[263]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The account just given of the views of Pythagoras -is, no doubt, conjectural and incomplete. We have -simply assigned to him those portions of the Pythagorean -system which appear to be the oldest, and it has not -even been possible at this stage to cite fully the -evidence on which our discussion is based. It will -only appear in its true light when we have examined -the second part of the poem of Parmenides and the -system of the later Pythagoreans.<a id='r264' /><a href='#f264' class='c014'><sup>[264]</sup></a> For reasons which -will then be apparent, I do not venture to ascribe to -Pythagoras himself the theory of the earth’s revolution -round the central fire. It seems safest to suppose -that he still adhered to the geocentric hypothesis of -Anaximander. In spite of this, however, it will be -clear that he opened a new period in the development -of Greek science, and it was certainly to his school that -its greatest discoveries were directly or indirectly due. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_124'>124</span>When Plato deliberately attributes some of his own -most important discoveries to the Pythagoreans, he -was acknowledging in a characteristic way the debt he -owed them.</p> - -<h3 class='c018'>II. <span class='sc'>Xenophanes of Kolophon</span></h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Life.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec55'></a>55. We have seen how Pythagoras identified himself -with the religious movement of his time; we have now -to consider a very different manifestation of the reaction -against that view of the gods which the poets had -made familiar to every one. Xenophanes denied the -anthropomorphic gods altogether, but was quite -unaffected by the revival of more primitive ideas that -was going on all round him. We still have a fragment -of an elegy in which he ridiculed Pythagoras and the -doctrine of transmigration. “Once, they say, he was -passing by when a dog was being ill-treated. ‘Stop!’ -he said, ‘don’t hit it! It is the soul of a friend! I -knew it when I heard its voice.’”<a id='r265' /><a href='#f265' class='c014'><sup>[265]</sup></a> We are also told -that he opposed the views of Thales and Pythagoras, -and attacked Epimenides, which is likely enough, -though no fragments of the kind have come down to -us.<a id='r266' /><a href='#f266' class='c014'><sup>[266]</sup></a> His chief importance lies in the fact that he was -the author of the quarrel between philosophy and -poetry which culminated in Plato’s <cite>Republic</cite>.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is not easy to determine the date of Xenophanes. -Timaios said he was a contemporary of Hieron -and Epicharmos, and he certainly seems to have -<span class='pageno' id='Page_125'>125</span>played a part in the anecdotical romance of Hieron’s -court which amused the Greeks of the fourth century -much as that of Croesus and the Seven Wise Men -amused those of the fifth.<a id='r267' /><a href='#f267' class='c014'><sup>[267]</sup></a> As Hieron reigned -from 478 to 467 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, that would make it impossible -to date the birth of Xenophanes much earlier than 570 -<span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, even if we suppose him to have lived till the -age of a hundred. On the other hand, both Sextus -and Clement say that Apollodoros gave Ol. XL. (620-616 -<span class='fss'>B.C.</span>) as the date of his birth, and the former adds -that his days were prolonged till the time of Dareios -and Cyrus.<a id='r268' /><a href='#f268' class='c014'><sup>[268]</sup></a> Again, Diogenes, whose information -on such matters mostly comes from Apollodoros, -says that he flourished in Ol. LX. (540-537 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>), and -Diels holds that Apollodoros really said so.<a id='r269' /><a href='#f269' class='c014'><sup>[269]</sup></a> However -that may be, it is evident that the date 540 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> -is based on the assumption that he went to Elea in -the year of its foundation, and is, therefore, a mere -combination.<a id='r270' /><a href='#f270' class='c014'><sup>[270]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_126'>126</span>What we do know for certain is that Xenophanes -had led a wandering life from the age of twenty-five, -and that he was still alive and making poetry at the -age of ninety-two. He says himself (fr. 8 = 24 Karst.; -R. P. 97):—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>There are by this time threescore years and seven that -have tossed my careworn soul<a id='r271' /><a href='#f271' class='c014'><sup>[271]</sup></a> up and down the land of -Hellas; and there were then five-and-twenty years from my -birth, if I can say aught truly about these matters.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It is tempting to suppose that in this passage -Xenophanes was referring to the conquest of Ionia by -Harpagos, and that he is, in fact, answering the question -asked in another poem<a id='r272' /><a href='#f272' class='c014'><sup>[272]</sup></a> (fr. 22 = 17 Karst.; R. P. -95 a):—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>This is the sort of thing we should say by the fireside in -the winter-time, as we lie on soft couches after a good -meal, drinking sweet wine and crunching chickpeas: “Of -what country are you, and how old are you, good sir? And -how old were you when the Mede appeared?”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>We cannot, however, be sure of this, and we must -be content with what is, after all, for our purpose the -main fact, namely, that he refers to Pythagoras in the -past tense, and is in turn so referred to by Herakleitos.<a id='r273' /><a href='#f273' class='c014'><sup>[273]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Theophrastos said that Xenophanes had “heard” -Anaximander,<a id='r274' /><a href='#f274' class='c014'><sup>[274]</sup></a> and we shall see that he was certainly -acquainted with the Ionian cosmology. When driven -<span class='pageno' id='Page_127'>127</span>from his native city, he lived in Sicily, chiefly, we are -told, at Zankle and Katana.<a id='r275' /><a href='#f275' class='c014'><sup>[275]</sup></a> Like Archilochos before -him, he unburdened his soul in elegies and satires, which -he recited at the banquets where, we may suppose, the -refugees tried to keep up the usages of good Ionian -society. The statement that he was a rhapsode has -no foundation at all.<a id='r276' /><a href='#f276' class='c014'><sup>[276]</sup></a> The singer of elegies was no -professional like the rhapsode, but the social equal of -his listeners. In his ninety-second year he was still, -we have seen, leading a wandering life, which is hardly -consistent with the statement that he settled at Elea -and founded a school there, especially if we are to think -of him as spending his last days at Hieron’s court. It -is quite probable that he visited Elea, and it is just -possible that he wrote a poem of two thousand hexameters -on the foundation of that city, which was -naturally a subject of interest to all the Ionic <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>émigrés</i></span>.<a id='r277' /><a href='#f277' class='c014'><sup>[277]</sup></a> -But it is very remarkable that no ancient writer expressly -says that he ever was at Elea, and the only thing -besides the doubtful poem referred to which connects -him with it is a single anecdote of Aristotle’s as to the -answer he gave the Eleates when they asked whether -they should sacrifice to Leukothea and lament her or -not. “If you think her a goddess,” he said, “do not -<span class='pageno' id='Page_128'>128</span>lament her; if not, do not sacrifice to her.” That is -absolutely all, and it is only an apophthegm.<a id='r278' /><a href='#f278' class='c014'><sup>[278]</sup></a> It -is strange there should be no more if Xenophanes -had really found a home at last in the Phokaian -colony.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Poems.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec56'></a>56. According to a notice preserved in Diogenes, -Xenophanes wrote in hexameters and also composed -elegies and iambics against Homer and Hesiod.<a id='r279' /><a href='#f279' class='c014'><sup>[279]</sup></a> No -good authority says anything about his having written -a philosophical poem.<a id='r280' /><a href='#f280' class='c014'><sup>[280]</sup></a> Simplicius tells us he had never -met with the verses about the earth stretching infinitely -downwards (fr. <a href='#Xe.28'>28</a>),<a id='r281' /><a href='#f281' class='c014'><sup>[281]</sup></a> and this means that the Academy -possessed no copy of such a poem, which would be very -strange if it had ever existed. Simplicius was able to -find the complete works of much smaller men. Nor does -internal evidence lend any support to the view that he -wrote a philosophical poem. Diels refers about twenty-eight -lines to it, but they would all come in quite -as naturally in his attacks on Homer and Hesiod, as I -have endeavoured to show. It is also significant that a -considerable number of them are derived from commentators -<span class='pageno' id='Page_129'>129</span>on Homer.<a id='r282' /><a href='#f282' class='c014'><sup>[282]</sup></a> It seems probable, then, that -Xenophanes expressed his theological and philosophical -views incidentally in his satires. That would be quite -in the manner of the time, as we can see from the -remains of Epicharmos.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The satires themselves are called <cite>Silloi</cite> by late writers, -and this name may go back to Xenophanes himself. -It is also possible, however, that it originates in the -fact that Timon of Phleious, the “sillographer” (<i>c.</i> 259 -<span class='fss'>B.C.</span>), put much of his satire upon philosophers into the -mouth of Xenophanes. Only one iambic line has been -preserved, and that is immediately followed by a hexameter -(fr. <a href='#Xe.14'>14</a> = 5 Karst.). This suggests that Xenophanes -inserted iambic lines among his hexameters in -the manner of the <cite>Margites</cite>, which would be a very -natural thing for him to do.<a id='r283' /><a href='#f283' class='c014'><sup>[283]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The fragments.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec57'></a>57. I give all the fragments of any importance -according to the text and arrangement of Diels.</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='sc'>Elegies</span></div> - <div class='c001'>(1)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Now is the floor clean, and the hands and cups of all; one -sets twisted garlands on our heads, another hands us fragrant -ointment on a salver. The mixing bowls stand ready, full -of gladness, and there is more wine at hand that promises -never to leave us in the lurch, soft and smelling of flowers in -the jars. In the midst the frankincense sends up its holy -smoke, and there is cold water, sweet and clean. Brown -loaves are set before us and a lordly table laden with cheese and -rich honey. The altar in the midst is clustered round with -flowers; song and revel fill the halls.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_130'>130</span>But first it is meet that men should hymn the god with -joyful song, with holy tales and pure words; then after libation -and prayer made that we may have strength to do right—for -that is in truth the better way—no sin is it to drink as much -as a man can take and get home without an attendant, so he -be not stricken in years. And above all men is he to be -praised who after drinking gives goodly proof of himself in the -trial of skill, as memory and voice will serve him. Let him not -sing of Titans and Giants—those fictions of the men of old—nor -of turbulent civil broils in which is no good thing at all; -but ever give heedful reverence to the gods.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(2)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>What if a man win victory in swiftness of foot, or in the -<em>pentathlon</em>, at Olympia, where is the precinct of Zeus by Pisa’s -springs, or in wrestling,—what if by cruel boxing or that -fearful sport men call <em>pankration</em> he become more glorious in -the citizens’ eyes, and win a place of honour in the sight of all -at the games, his food at the public cost from the State, and -a gift to be an heirloom for him,—what if he conquer in the -chariot-race,—he will not deserve all this for his portion so -much as I do. Far better is our art than the strength of men -and of horses! These are but thoughtless judgments, nor is it -fitting to set strength before our art. Even if there arise a -mighty boxer among a people, or one great in the <em>pentathlon</em> -or at wrestling, or one excelling in swiftness of foot—and that -stands in honour before all tasks of men at the games—the -city would be none the better governed for that. It is but -little joy a city gets of it if a man conquer at the games by -Pisa’s banks; it is not this that makes fat the store-houses of -a city.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(3)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>They learnt dainty and unprofitable ways from the Lydians, -so long as they were free from hateful tyranny; they went to -the market-place with cloaks of purple dye, not less than a -thousand of them all told, vainglorious and proud of their -comely tresses, reeking with fragrance from cunning salves.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c013'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_131'>131</span><span class='sc'>Satires</span></div> - <div class='c001'>(10)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Since all at first have learnt according to Homer....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Xe.11'></a>(11)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>Homer and Hesiod have ascribed to the gods all things -that are a shame and a disgrace among mortals, stealings and -adulteries and deceivings of one another. R. P. 99.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(12)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>They have uttered many, many lawless deeds of the gods, -stealings and adulteries and deceivings of one another. -R. P. <i>ib.</i></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Xe.14'></a>(14)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>But mortals deem that the gods are begotten as they are, -and have clothes<a id='r284' /><a href='#f284' class='c014'><sup>[284]</sup></a> like theirs, and voice and form. R. P. 100.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(15)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>Yes, and if oxen and horses or lions had hands, and could -paint with their hands, and produce works of art as men do, -horses would paint the forms of the gods like horses, and oxen -like oxen, and make their bodies in the image of their several -kinds. R. P. <i>ib.</i></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Xe.16'></a>(16)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>The Ethiopians make their gods black and snub-nosed; the -Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair. R. P. 100 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(18)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>The gods have not revealed all things to men from the -beginning, but by seeking they find in time what is better. -R. P. 104 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_132'>132</span><a id='Xe.23'></a>(23)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>One god, the greatest among gods and men, neither in form -like unto mortals nor in thought.... R. P. 100.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(24)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>He sees all over, thinks all over, and hears all over. R. P. -102.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(25)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>But without toil he swayeth all things by the thought of his -mind. R. P. 108 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Xe.26'></a>(26)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>And he abideth ever in the selfsame place, moving not at -all; nor doth it befit him to go about now hither now thither. -R. P. 110 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Xe.27'></a>(27)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>All things come from the earth, and in earth all things end. -R. P. 103 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Xe.28'></a>(28)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>This limit of the earth above is seen at our feet in contact with -the air;<a id='r285' /><a href='#f285' class='c014'><sup>[285]</sup></a> below it reaches down without a limit. R. P. 103.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Xe.29'></a>(29)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>All things are earth and water that come into being and -grow. R. P. 103.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Xe.30'></a>(30)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>The sea is the source of water and the source of wind; for -neither in the clouds (would there be any blasts of wind -blowing forth) from within without the mighty sea, nor rivers’ -streams nor rain-water from the sky. The mighty sea is father -of clouds and of winds and of rivers.<a id='r286' /><a href='#f286' class='c014'><sup>[286]</sup></a> R. P. 103.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_133'>133</span><a id='Xe.31'></a>(31)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>The sun swinging over<a id='r287' /><a href='#f287' class='c014'><sup>[287]</sup></a> the earth and warming it....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Xe.32'></a>(32)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>She that they call Iris is a cloud likewise, purple, scarlet -and green to behold. R. P. 103.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Xe.33'></a>(33)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>For we all are born of earth and water. R. P. <i>ib.</i></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(34)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>There never was nor will be a man who has certain knowledge -about the gods and about all the things I speak of. -Even if he should chance to say the complete truth, yet he -himself knows not that it is so. But all may have their fancy. -R. P. 104.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(35)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>Let these be taken as fancies<a id='r288' /><a href='#f288' class='c014'><sup>[288]</sup></a> something like the truth. -R. P. 104 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(36)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>All of them<a id='r289' /><a href='#f289' class='c014'><sup>[289]</sup></a> that are visible for mortals to behold.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(37)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>And in some caves water drips....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(38)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c022'>If god had not made brown honey, men would think figs -far sweeter than they do.</p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>The heavenly bodies.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec58'></a>58. The intention of one of these fragments (fr. <a href='#Xe.32'>32</a>) -is perfectly clear. “Iris too” is a cloud, and we may -infer that the same thing had just been said of the sun, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_134'>134</span>moon, and stars; for the doxographers tell us that these -were all explained as “clouds ignited by motion.”<a id='r290' /><a href='#f290' class='c014'><sup>[290]</sup></a> To -the same context clearly belongs the explanation of the -St. Elmo’s fire which Aetios has preserved. “The -things like stars which appear on ships,” we are told, -“which some call the Dioskouroi, are little clouds made -luminous by motion.”<a id='r291' /><a href='#f291' class='c014'><sup>[291]</sup></a> In the doxographers this -explanation is repeated with trifling variations under -the head of moon, stars, comets, lightning, shooting -stars, and so forth, which gives the appearance of a -systematic cosmology.<a id='r292' /><a href='#f292' class='c014'><sup>[292]</sup></a> But the system is due to the -arrangement of the work of Theophrastos, and not to -Xenophanes; for it is obvious that a very few hexameters -added to those we possess would amply account -for the whole doxography.</p> - -<p class='c002'>What we hear of the sun presents some difficulties. -We are told, on the one hand, that it too was an ignited -cloud; but this can hardly be right. The evaporation -of the sea from which clouds arise is distinctly said to -be due to the sun’s heat. Theophrastos stated that the -sun, according to Xenophanes, was a collection of sparks -from the moist exhalation; but even this leaves the -exhalation itself unexplained.<a id='r293' /><a href='#f293' class='c014'><sup>[293]</sup></a> That, however, matters -little, if the chief aim of Xenophanes was to discredit -the anthropomorphic gods, rather than to give a -<span class='pageno' id='Page_135'>135</span>scientific theory of the heavenly bodies. The important -thing is that Helios too is a temporary phenomenon. -The sun does not go round the earth, as Anaximander -taught, but straight on, and the appearance of -a circular path is solely due to its increasing distance. -So it is not the same sun that rises next morning, but -a new one altogether; while the old one “tumbles into -a hole” when it comes to certain uninhabited regions -of the earth. Besides that, there are many suns and -moons, one of each for every region of the earth.<a id='r294' /><a href='#f294' class='c014'><sup>[294]</sup></a> It -is obvious that things of that kind cannot be gods.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The vigorous expression “tumbling into a hole”<a id='r295' /><a href='#f295' class='c014'><sup>[295]</sup></a> -seems clearly to come from the verses of Xenophanes -himself, and there are others of a similar kind, which -we must suppose were quoted by Theophrastos. The -stars go out in the daytime, but glow again at night -“like charcoal embers.”<a id='r296' /><a href='#f296' class='c014'><sup>[296]</sup></a> The sun is of some use in -producing the world and the living creatures in it, but -the moon “does no work in the boat.”<a id='r297' /><a href='#f297' class='c014'><sup>[297]</sup></a> Such expressions -can only be meant to make the heavenly -bodies appear ridiculous, and it will therefore be well to -ask whether the other supposed cosmological fragments -can be interpreted on the same principle.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Earth and water.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_136'>136</span><a id='sec59'></a>59. In fr. <a href='#Xe.29'>29</a> Xenophanes says that “all things are -earth and water,” and Hippolytos has preserved the -account given by Theophrastos of the context in which -this occurred. It was as follows:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Xenophanes said that a mixture of the earth with the sea -is taking place, and that it is being gradually dissolved by the -moisture. He says that he has the following proofs of this. -Shells are found in midland districts and on hills, and he says -that in the quarries at Syracuse has been found the imprint of -a fish and of seaweed, at Paros the form of an anchovy in the -depth of the stone, and at Malta flat impressions of all marine -animals. These, he says, were produced when all things were -formerly mud, and the outlines were dried in the mud. All -human beings are destroyed when the earth has been carried -down into the sea and turned to mud. This change takes -place for all the worlds.—Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 14 (R. P. 103 a).</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>This is, of course, the theory of Anaximander, and -we may perhaps credit him rather than Xenophanes -with the observations of fossils.<a id='r298' /><a href='#f298' class='c014'><sup>[298]</sup></a> Most remarkable of -all, however, is the statement that this change applies to -“all the worlds.” It really seems impossible to doubt -that Theophrastos attributed a belief in “innumerable -worlds” to Xenophanes. As we have seen already, -Aetios includes him in his list of those who held this -doctrine, and Diogenes ascribes it to him also.<a id='r299' /><a href='#f299' class='c014'><sup>[299]</sup></a> In -this place, Hippolytos seems to take it for granted. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_137'>137</span>We shall also find, however, that in another connexion -he said the World or God was one. If our interpretation -of him is correct, there is no difficulty here. The -main point is that, so far from being a primeval goddess, -and “a sure seat for all things ever,” Gaia too is a -passing appearance. That belongs to the attack upon -Hesiod, and, if in this connexion Xenophanes spoke, -with Anaximander, of “innumerable worlds,” while -elsewhere he said that God or the World was one, -that is probably connected with a still better attested -contradiction which we have now to examine.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Finite or infinite?</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec60'></a>60. Aristotle tried without success to discover from -the poems of Xenophanes whether he regarded the -world as finite or infinite. “He made no clear pronouncement -on the subject,” he tells us.<a id='r300' /><a href='#f300' class='c014'><sup>[300]</sup></a> Theophrastos, -on the other hand, decided that he regarded it as -spherical and finite because he said it was “equal every -way.”<a id='r301' /><a href='#f301' class='c014'><sup>[301]</sup></a> This, however, leads to very serious difficulties. -We have seen already that Xenophanes said the sun -went right on to infinity, and this agrees with his view -of the earth as an infinitely extended plain. Still -more difficult to reconcile with the idea of a spherical -and finite world is the statement of fr. <a href='#Xe.28'>28</a> that, while -the earth has an upper limit which we see, it has no -limit below. This is attested by Aristotle, who speaks -of the earth being “infinitely rooted,” and adds that -Empedokles criticised Xenophanes for holding this -<span class='pageno' id='Page_138'>138</span>view.<a id='r302' /><a href='#f302' class='c014'><sup>[302]</sup></a> It further appears from the fragment of -Empedokles quoted by Aristotle that Xenophanes said -the vast Air extended infinitely upwards.<a id='r303' /><a href='#f303' class='c014'><sup>[303]</sup></a> We are -therefore bound to try to find room for an infinite -earth and an infinite air in a spherical and finite world! -That comes of trying to find science in satire. If, on -the other hand, we regard these statements from the -same point of view as those about the heavenly bodies, -we shall at once see what they most probably mean. -The story of Ouranos and Gaia was always the chief -scandal of the <cite>Theogony</cite>, and the infinite air gets rid of -Ouranos altogether. As to the earth stretching -infinitely downwards, that gets rid of Tartaros, which -Homer described as situated at the bottommost limit -of earth and sea, as far beneath Hades as heaven is -above the earth.<a id='r304' /><a href='#f304' class='c014'><sup>[304]</sup></a> This is pure conjecture, of course; -but, if it is even possible, we are entitled to disbelieve -that such startling contradictions occurred in a -cosmological poem.</p> - -<p class='c002'>A more subtle explanation of the difficulty -commended itself to the late Peripatetic who wrote an -account of the Eleatic school, part of which is still -extant in the Aristotelian corpus, and is generally -known now as the treatise on <cite>Melissos, Xenophanes, and -Gorgias</cite>.<a id='r305' /><a href='#f305' class='c014'><sup>[305]</sup></a> He said that Xenophanes declared the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_139'>139</span>world to be neither finite nor infinite, and he composed -a series of arguments in support of this thesis, to -which he added another like it, namely, that the world -is neither in motion nor at rest. This has introduced -endless confusion into our sources. Alexander used -this treatise as well as the great work of Theophrastos, -and Simplicius supposed the quotations from it to be -from Theophrastos too. Having no copy of the poems -he was completely baffled, and until recently all accounts -of Xenophanes were vitiated by the same confusion. -It may even be suggested that, but for this, we -should have heard very little of the “philosophy of -Xenophanes,” a way of speaking which is in the main -a survival from the days before this scholastic exercise -was recognised as having no authority.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>God and the world.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec61'></a>61. In the passage of the <cite>Metaphysics</cite> just referred -to, Aristotle speaks of Xenophanes as “the first -partisan of the One,”<a id='r306' /><a href='#f306' class='c014'><sup>[306]</sup></a> and the context shows that -he means to suggest he was the first of the Eleatics. -We have seen already that the certain facts of his life -make it very unlikely that he settled at Elea and -founded a school there, and it is probable that, as -usual in such cases, Aristotle is simply reproducing -<span class='pageno' id='Page_140'>140</span>certain statements of Plato. At any rate, Plato had -spoken of the Eleatics as the “partisans of the -Whole,”<a id='r307' /><a href='#f307' class='c014'><sup>[307]</sup></a> and he had also spoken of the school as -“starting with Xenophanes and even earlier.”<a id='r308' /><a href='#f308' class='c014'><sup>[308]</sup></a> The -last words, however, show clearly enough what he -meant. Just as he called the Herakleiteans “followers -of Homer and still more ancient teachers,”<a id='r309' /><a href='#f309' class='c014'><sup>[309]</sup></a> so he -attached the Eleatic school to Xenophanes and still -earlier authorities. We have seen in other instances -how these playful and ironical remarks of Plato were -taken seriously by his successors, and we need not let -this fresh instance of the same thing influence our -general view of Xenophanes unduly.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Aristotle goes on to tell us that Xenophanes, -“referring to the whole world,<a id='r310' /><a href='#f310' class='c014'><sup>[310]</sup></a> said the One was god.” -This clearly alludes to frs. <a href='#Xe.23'>23-26</a>, where all human -attributes are denied of a god who is said to be one -and “the greatest among gods and men.” It may be -added that these verses gain very much in point if we -may think of them as closely connected with frs. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_141'>141</span><a href='#Xe.11'>11-16</a>, instead of referring the one set of verses to the -Satires and the other to a cosmological poem. It was -probably in the same context that Xenophanes called -the world or god “equal every way”<a id='r311' /><a href='#f311' class='c014'><sup>[311]</sup></a> and denied that -it breathed.<a id='r312' /><a href='#f312' class='c014'><sup>[312]</sup></a> The statement that, there is no mastership -among the gods<a id='r313' /><a href='#f313' class='c014'><sup>[313]</sup></a> also goes very well with fr. <a href='#Xe.26'>26</a>. -A god has no wants, nor is it fitting for one god to be -the servant of others, like Iris and Hermes in Homer.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Monotheism or polytheism.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec62'></a>62. That this “god” is just the world, Aristotle -tells us, and the use of the word θεός is quite in -accordance with Anaximander’s. Xenophanes regarded -it as sentient, though without any special organs of -sense, and it sways all things by the thought of its -mind. He also calls it “one god,” and, if that is -monotheism, then Xenophanes was a monotheist, -though this is surely not how the word is generally -understood. The fact is that the expression “one -god” wakens all sorts of associations in our mind -which did not exist at all for the Greeks of this time. -His contemporaries would have been more likely to -call Xenophanes an atheist than anything else. As -Eduard Meyer excellently says: “In Greece the question -of one god or gods many hardly plays any part. -Whether the divine power is thought of as a unity -or a plurality, is irrelevant in comparison with the -question whether it exists at all, and how its nature -and its relation to the world is to be understood.”<a id='r314' /><a href='#f314' class='c014'><sup>[314]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_142'>142</span>On the other hand, it is wrong to say with Freudenthal -that Xenophanes was in any sense a polytheist.<a id='r315' /><a href='#f315' class='c014'><sup>[315]</sup></a> -That he should use the language of polytheism in his -elegies is only what we should expect, and the other -references to “gods” can be best explained as incidental -to his attack on the anthropomorphic gods of Homer -and Hesiod. In one case, Freudenthal has pressed a -proverbial way of speaking too hard.<a id='r316' /><a href='#f316' class='c014'><sup>[316]</sup></a> Least of all -can we admit that Xenophanes allowed the existence -of subordinate or departmental gods; for it was just -the existence of such that he was chiefly concerned -to deny. At the same time, I cannot help thinking that -Freudenthal was more nearly right than Wilamowitz, -who says that Xenophanes “upheld the only real -monotheism that has ever existed upon earth.”<a id='r317' /><a href='#f317' class='c014'><sup>[317]</sup></a> Diels, -I fancy, comes nearer the mark, when he calls it a -“somewhat narrow pantheism.”<a id='r318' /><a href='#f318' class='c014'><sup>[318]</sup></a> But all these views -would have surprised Xenophanes himself about equally. -He was really Goethe’s <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Weltkind</cite></span>, with prophets to -right and left of him, and he would have smiled if -he had known that one day he was to be regarded -as a theologian.</p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f169'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r169'>169</a>. For the theological views of Anaximander and Anaximenes, see -<a href='#sec22'>§ 22</a> and <a href='#sec30'>30</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f170'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r170'>170</a>. Cf. Herod. i. 170 (advice of Bias); vi. 22 sqq. (Kale Akte).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f171'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r171'>171</a>. On all this, see Rohde, <cite>Psyche</cite>, pp. 327 sqq. It is probable that he -exaggerated the degree to which these ideas were already developed among -the Thracians, but the essential connexion of the new view of the soul with -Northern worships is confirmed by the tradition over and over again.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f172'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r172'>172</a>. See Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alterth.</cite></span> ii. § 461. The exaggerated rôle -often attributed to priesthoods is a survival of French eighteenth century -thinking.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f173'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r173'>173</a>. See E. Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alterth.</cite></span> ii. §§ 453-460, who rightly -emphasises the fact that the Orphic theogony is the continuation of -Hesiod’s work. As we have seen, some of it is even older than -Hesiod.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f174'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r174'>174</a>. For the gold plates of Thourioi and Petelia, see the Appendix to Miss -Harrison’s <cite>Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion</cite>, where the text of -them is discussed and a translation given by Professor Gilbert Murray.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f175'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r175'>175</a>. This was the oldest name for these “mysteries,” and it simply means -“sacraments” (cf. ἔοργα). <cite>Orgia</cite> are not necessarily “orgiastic.” That -association of ideas merely comes from the fact that they belonged to the -worship of Dionysos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f176'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r176'>176</a>. Herodotos mentions that Isagoras and those of his γένος worshipped -the Karian Zeus (v. 66), and it is probable that the <cite>Orgeones</cite> attached by -Kleisthenes to the Attic <cite>phratriai</cite> were associations of this kind. See -Foucart, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Les associations religieuses chez les Grecs</cite></span>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f177'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r177'>177</a>. A striking parallel is afforded to all this by what we are told in -Robertson Smith’s <cite>Religion of the Semites</cite>, p. 339. “The leading feature -that distinguished them” (the Semitic mysteries of the seventh century -<span class='fss'>B.C.</span>) “from the old public cults with which they came into competition, is -that they were not based on the principle of nationality, but sought -recruits from men of every race who were willing to accept initiation -through the mystic sacraments.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f178'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r178'>178</a>. The <cite>Phaedo</cite> is dedicated, as it were, to Echekrates and the -Pythagorean society at Phleious, and it is evident that Plato in his youth -was impressed by the religious side of Pythagoreanism, though the -influence of Pythagorean science is not clearly marked till a later period. -Note specially the ἄτραπος of <cite>Phd.</cite> 66 b 4. In <cite>Rep.</cite> x. 600 b 1, Plato -speaks of Pythagoras as the originator of a private ὁδός τις βίου.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f179'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r179'>179</a>. Cf. especially the point of view of the <cite>Auction of Lives</cite> (Βίων πρᾶσις).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f180'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r180'>180</a>. For the Προτρεπτικός of Aristotle, see Bywater in <cite>J. Phil.</cite> ii. p. 55; -Diels in <cite>Arch.</cite> i. p. 477; and the notes on <cite>Ethics</cite>, i. 5, in my edition.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f181'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r181'>181</a>. Plato, <cite>Rep.</cite> 520 c 1, καταβατέον οὖν ἐν μέρει. The allegory of the -Cave seems to be Orphic, and I believe Professor Stewart’s suggestion -(<cite>Myths of Plato</cite>, p. 252, n. 2), that Plato had the κατάβασις εἰς Ἅιδου in -mind, to be quite justified. The idea of rescuing the “spirits in prison” -is thoroughly Orphic.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f182'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r182'>182</a>. For Empedokles, see <a href='#sec119'>§ 119</a>; for the Pythagoreans, see <a href='#sec149'>§ 149</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f183'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r183'>183</a>. Cf. <cite>Phd.</cite> 69 c 2, καὶ κινδυνεύουσι καὶ οἱ τὰς τελετὰς ἡμῖν οὗτοι -καταστήσαντες οὐ φαῦλοί τινες εἶναι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὄντι πάλαι αἰνίττεσθαι -κ.τ.λ. The gentle irony of this and similar passages ought to be -unmistakable.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f184'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r184'>184</a>. Arist. fr. 45, 1483 a 19, τοὺς τελουμένους οὐ μαθεῖν τι δεῖν, ἀλλὰ -παθεῖν καὶ διατεθῆναι.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f185'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r185'>185</a>. See E. Rohde’s admirable papers, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Die Quellen des Iamblichus in -seiner Biographie des Pythagoras”</span> (<cite>Rh. Mus.</cite> xxvi., xxvii.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f186'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r186'>186</a>. Iamblichos was a disciple of Porphyry, and contemporary with -Constantine. The <cite>Life of Pythagoras</cite> has been edited by Nauck (1884). -Nikomachos belongs to the beginning of the second century <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> There is -no evidence that he added anything to the authorities he followed, but these -were already vitiated by Neopythagorean fables. Still, it is to him we -chiefly owe the preservation of the valuable evidence of Aristoxenos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f187'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r187'>187</a>. Porphyry’s <cite>Life of Pythagoras</cite> is the only considerable extract from his -<cite>History of Philosophy</cite>, in four books, that has survived. The romance of -Antonius is the original parodied by Lucian in his <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Vera Historia</cite></span>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f188'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r188'>188</a>. The importance of the life in Laertios Diogenes lies in the fact that -it gives us the story current at Alexandria before the rise of Neopythagoreanism -and the promulgation of the gospel according to Apollonios -of Tyana.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f189'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r189'>189</a>. Andron of Ephesos wrote a work on the Seven Wise Men, called -<cite>The Tripod</cite>, in allusion to the well-known story. The feats ascribed to -Pythagoras in the Aristotelian treatise remind us of an ecclesiastical legend. -For example, he kills a deadly snake by biting it; he was seen at Kroton -and Metapontion at the same time; he exhibited his golden thigh at -Olympia, and was addressed by a voice from heaven when crossing the -river Kasas. The same authority stated that he was identified by the -Krotoniates with Apollo Hyperboreios (Arist. fr. 186).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f190'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r190'>190</a>. Herod. iv. 95.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f191'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r191'>191</a>. Cf. Herod. iv. 95, and Herakleitos, fr. <a href='#He.17'>17</a> (R. P. 31 a). Herodotos -represents him as living at Samos. On the other hand, Aristoxenos said -that he came from one of the islands which the Athenians occupied after -expelling the Tyrrhenians (Diog. viii. 1). This suggests Lemnos, from -which the Tyrrhenian “Pelasgians” were expelled by Miltiades (Herod. vi. -140), or possibly some other island which was occupied at the same time. -There were also Tyrrhenians at Imbros. This explains the story that he -was an Etrurian or a Tyrian. Other accounts bring him into connexion -with Phleious, but that is perhaps a pious invention of the Pythagorean -society which flourished there at the beginning of the fourth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> -Pausanias (ii. 13, 1) gives it as a Phleiasian tradition that Hippasos, the -great-grandfather of Pythagoras, had emigrated from Phleious to Samos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f192'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r192'>192</a>. Eratosthenes identified Pythagoras with the Olympic victor of Ol. -XLVIII. 1 (588/7 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>), but Apollodoros gave his <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span> as 532/1, the era -of Polykrates. He doubtless based this on the statement of Aristoxenos -quoted by Porphyry (<cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 9), that Pythagoras left Samos from dislike -to the tyranny of Polykrates (R. P. 53 a). For a full discussion, see Jacoby, -pp. 215 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f193'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r193'>193</a>. Herakl. fr. <a href='#He.16'>16</a>, <a href='#He.17'>17</a> (R. P. 31, 31 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f194'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r194'>194</a>. It occurs first in the <cite>Bousiris</cite> of Isokrates, § 28 (R. P. 52).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f195'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r195'>195</a>. Herod. ii. 81 (R. P. 52 a). The comma at Αἰγυπτίοισι is clearly right. -Herodotos believed that the worship of Dionysos was introduced from -Egypt by Melampous (ii. 49), and he means to suggest that the Orphics got -these practices from the worshippers of Bakchos, while the Pythagoreans -got them from the Orphics.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f196'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r196'>196</a>. Herod. ii. 123 (R. P. <i>ib.</i>). The words “whose names I know, but -do not write” cannot refer to Pythagoras; for it is only of contemporaries -that Herodotos speaks in this way (cf. i. 51; iv. 48). Stein’s suggestion that -he meant Empedokles seems to me convincing. Herodotos may have met -him at Thourioi. Nor is there any reason to suppose that οἱ μὲν πρότερον -refers specially to the Pythagoreans. If Herodotos had ever heard of -Pythagoras visiting Egypt, he would surely have said so in one or other of -these passages. There was no occasion for reserve, as Pythagoras must -have died before Herodotos was born.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f197'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r197'>197</a>. Porph. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 9 (R. P. 53 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f198'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r198'>198</a>. From what Herodotos tells us of Demokedes (iii. 131) we can see that -the medical school of Kroton was founded before the time of Pythagoras. -Cf. Wachtler, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>De Alcmaeone Crotoniata</cite></span>, p. 91.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f199'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r199'>199</a>. It may be taken as certain that Pythagoras spent his last days at -Metapontion; Aristoxenos said so (<i>ap.</i> Iambl. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 249), and Cicero -(<cite>De Fin.</cite> v. 4) speaks of the honours which continued to be paid to his -memory in that city (R. P. 57 c). Cf. also Andron, fr. 6 (<cite>F.H.G.</cite> ii. 347).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f200'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r200'>200</a>. For these distinctions, see Porphyry (<cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 37) and Iamblichos -(<cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 80), quoted R. P. 56 and 56 b. The name ἀκουσματικοί is clearly -related to the ἀκούσματα, with which we shall have to deal shortly (<a href='#sec44'>§ 44</a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f201'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r201'>201</a>. For the “mystic silence,” see Aristoxenos, <i>ap.</i> Diog. viii. 15 (R. P. 55 a). -Tannery, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">“Sur le secret dans l’école de Pythagore”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> i. pp. 28 sqq.), -thinks that the mathematical doctrines were the secrets of the school, and -that these were divulged by Hippasos; but the most reasonable view is -that there were no secrets at all except of a ritual kind.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f202'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r202'>202</a>. Plato, <cite>Rep.</cite> x. 600 a, implies that Pythagoras held no public office. -The view that the Pythagorean sect was a political league, maintained in -modern times by Krische (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>De societatis a Pythagora conditae scopo politico</cite></span>, -1830), goes back, as Rohde has shown (<i>loc. cit.</i>), to Dikaiarchos, the -champion of the “Practical Life,” just as the view that it was primarily a -scientific society goes back to the mathematician and musician Aristoxenos. -The former antedated Archytas, just as the latter antedated Philolaos (see -Chap. VII. <a href='#sec138'>§ 138</a>). Grote’s good sense enabled him to see this quite clearly -(vol. iv. pp. 329 sqq.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f203'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r203'>203</a>. Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alterth.</cite></span> ii. § 502, Anm. It is still necessary -to insist upon this, as the idea that the Pythagoreans represented the -“Dorian ideal” dies very hard. In his <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Kulturhistorische Beiträge</cite></span> (Heft -i. p. 59), Max C. P. Schmidt imagines that later writers call the founder -of the sect Pythagoras instead of Pythagores, as he is called by Herakleitos -and Demokritos, because he had become “a Dorian of the Dorians.” -The fact is simply that Πυθαγόρας is the Attic form of Πυθαγόρης, and -that the writers in question wrote Attic. Similarly, Plato calls Archytas, -who did belong to a Dorian state, Archytes, though Aristoxenos and others -retained the Dorian form of his name.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f204'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r204'>204</a>. Kylon, the chief opponent of the Pythagoreans, is described by -Aristoxenos (Iambl. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 248) as γένει καὶ δόξῃ καὶ πλούτῳ πρωτεύων -τῶν πολιτῶν. Taras, later the chief seat of the Pythagoreans, was a -democracy. The truth is that, at this time, the new religion appealed to -the people rather than the aristocracies, which were apt to be “free-thinking” -(Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alt.</cite></span> iii. § 252). Xenophanes, not Pythagoras, -is their man.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f205'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r205'>205</a>. We have the authority of Aristotle, fr. 186, 1510 b 20, for the identification -of Pythagoras with Apollo Hyperboreios. The names of Abaris and -Aristeas stand for a mystical movement parallel to the Orphic, but based -on the worship of Apollo. The later tradition makes them predecessors of -Pythagoras; and that this has some historical basis, appears from Herod. -iv. 13 sqq., and above all from the statement that Aristeas had a statue at -Metapontion, where Pythagoras died. The connexion of Pythagoras with -Zamolxis belongs to the same order of ideas. As the legend of the Hyperboreans -is Delian, we see that the religion taught by Pythagoras was -genuinely Ionian in its origin.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f206'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r206'>206</a>. See Rohde, <cite>Rh. Mus.</cite> xxvi. p. 565, n. 1. The narrative in the text -(Iambl. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 250; R. P. 59 b) goes back to Aristoxenos and -Dikaiarchos (R. P. 59 a). There is no reason to suppose that their view of -Pythagoras has vitiated their account of what must have been a perfectly -well-known piece of history. According to the later story, Pythagoras -himself was burned to death in the house of Milo, along with his disciples. -This is merely a dramatic compression of the whole series of events into a -single scene; we have seen that Pythagoras died at Metapontion before the -final catastrophe. The valuable reference in Polybios ii. 39 (R. P. 59) to -the burning of Pythagorean συνέδρια certainly implies that the disturbances -went on for a very considerable time.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f207'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r207'>207</a>. Plato, <cite>Phd.</cite> 61 d 7, e 7.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f208'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r208'>208</a>. When discussing the Pythagorean system, Aristotle always refers it to -“the Pythagoreans,” not to Pythagoras himself. That this was intentional -seems to be proved by the phrase οἱ καλούμενοι Πυθαγόρειοι, which occurs -more than once (<i>e.g.</i> <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 985 b 23; <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Β, 13. 293 a 20). -Pythagoras himself is only thrice mentioned in the whole Aristotelian corpus, -and in only one of these places (<cite>M. Mor.</cite> 1182 a 11) is any philosophical -doctrine ascribed to him. We are told there that he was the first to discuss -the subject of goodness, and that he made the mistake of identifying its -various forms with numbers. But this is just one of the things which prove -the late date of the <cite>Magna Moralia</cite>. Aristotle himself is quite clear that -what he knew as the Pythagorean system belonged in the main to the days -of Empedokles, Anaxagoras, and Leukippos; for, after mentioning these, -he goes on to describe the Pythagoreans as “contemporary with and earlier -than them” (ἐν δὲ τούτοις καὶ πρὸ τούτων, <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 985 b 23).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f209'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r209'>209</a>. The fragments of the Πυθαγορικαὶ ἀποφάσεις of Aristoxenos are given -by Diels, <cite>Vors.</cite> pp. 282 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f210'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r210'>210</a>. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 19 (R. P. 55).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f211'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r211'>211</a>. See Diels, <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 150; and <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Ein gefälschtes Pythagorasbuch”</span> -(<cite>Arch.</cite> iii. pp. 451 sqq.). Cf. also Bernays, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Die Heraklitischen Briefe</cite></span>, -n. 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f212'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r212'>212</a>. The proper Greek term for this is παλιγγενεσία, and the inaccurate -μετεμψύχωσις only occurs in late writers. Hippolytos and Clement of -Alexandria say μετενσωμάτωσις, which is accurate but cumbrous. See -Rohde, <cite>Psyche</cite>, p. 428, n. 2.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f213'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r213'>213</a>. On the significance of this, see above, p. 93.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f214'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r214'>214</a>. Dieterich, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Mutter Erde”</span> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Archiv für Religionswissenschaft</cite></span>, viii. pp. -29 and 47).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f215'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r215'>215</a>. Aristoxenos <i>ap.</i> Diog. viii. 20, πάντα μὲν τὰ ἄλλα συγχωρεῖν αὐτὸν -ἐσθίειν ἔμψυχα, μόνον δ’ ἀπέχεσθαι βοὸς ἀροτῆρος καὶ κριοῦ.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f216'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r216'>216</a>. Aristoxenos <i>ap.</i> Gell. iv. 11, 5, Πυθαγόρας δὲ τῶν ὀσπρίων μάλιστα τὸν -κύαμον ἐδοκίμασεν· λειαντικόν τε γὰρ εἶναι καὶ διαχωρητικόν· διὸ καὶ -μάλιστα κέχρηται αὐτῷ; <i>ib.</i> 6, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“porculis quoque minusculis et haedis tenerioribus -victitasse, idem Aristoxenus refert.”</span> It is, of course, possible that -Aristoxenos may be right about the taboo on beans. We know that it -was Orphic, and it may have been transferred to the Pythagoreans by -mistake. That, however, would not affect the general conclusion that at -least some Pythagoreans practised abstinence from various kinds of food, -which is all that is required.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f217'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r217'>217</a>. The sect of the “Akousmatics” was said to descend from Hippasos -(Iambl. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 81; R. P. 56). Now Hippasos was the author of a -μυστικὸς λόγος (Diog. viii. 7; R. P. 56 c), that is to say, of a superstitious -ceremonial or ritual handbook, probably containing Akousmata like those -we are about to consider; for we are told that it was written ἐπὶ διαβολῇ -Πυθαγόρου.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f218'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r218'>218</a>. Diels has collected these fragments in a convenient form (<cite>Vors.</cite> pp. 291 -sqq.). For our purpose the most important passages are Antiphanes, fr. 135, -Kock, ὥσπερ Πυθαγορίζων ἐσθίει | ἔμψυχον οὐδέν; Alexis, fr. 220, οἱ Πυθαγορίζοντες -γάρ, ὡς ἀκούομεν, | οὔτ’ ὄψον ἐσθίουσιν οὔτ’ ἄλλ’ οὐδὲ ἓν | ἔμψυχον; -fr. 196 (from the Πυθαγορίζουσα), ἡ δ’ ἑστίασις ἰσχάδες καὶ στέμφυλα | καὶ -τυρὸς ἔσται· ταῦτα γὰρ θύειν νόμος | τοῖς Πυθαγορείοις; Aristophon, fr. 9 -(from the Πυθαγοριστής), πρὸς τῶν θεῶν οἰόμεθα τοὺς πάλαι ποτέ, | τοὺς -Πυθαγοριστὰς γενομένους ὄντως ῥυπᾶν | ἑκόντας ἢ φορεῖν τριβῶνας ἡδέως; -Mnesimachos, fr. 1, ὡς Πυθαγοριστὶ θύομεν τῷ Λοξίᾳ | ἔμψυχον οὐδὲν -ἐσθίοντες παντελῶς. See also Theokritos, xiv. 5, τοιοῦτος καὶ πρᾶν τις -ἀφίκετο Πυθαγορικτάς, | ὠχρὸς κἀνυποδητός· Ἀθηναῖος δ’ ἔφατ’ ἦμεν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f219'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r219'>219</a>. See Bernays, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Theophrastos’ Schrift über Frömmigkeit</cite></span>. Porphyry’s -tract, Περὶ ἀποχῆς ἐμψύχων, was doubtless saved from the general destruction -of his writings by its conformity to the ascetic tendencies of the age. -Even St. Jerome made constant use of it in his polemic against Iovianus, -though he is careful not to mention Porphyry’s name (<cite>Theophr. Schr.</cite> n. 2). -The tract is addressed to Castricius Firmus, the disciple and friend of -Plotinos, who had fallen away from the strict vegetarianism of the -Pythagoreans.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f220'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r220'>220</a>. The passage occurs <cite>De Abst.</cite> p. 58, 25 Nauck: ἱστοροῦσι δέ τινες καὶ -αὐτοὺς ἅπτεσθαι τῶν ἐμψύχων τοὺς Πυθαγορείους, ὅτε θύοιεν θεοῖς. The -part of the work from which this is taken comes from one Clodius, on -whom see Bernay, <cite>Theophr. Schr.</cite> p. 11. He was probably the rhetorician -Sextus Clodius, and a contemporary of Cicero. Bernays has shown that he -made use of the work of Herakleides of Pontos (<i>ib.</i> n. 19). On “mystic -sacrifice” generally, see Robertson Smith, <cite>Rel. Sem.</cite> i. p. 276.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f221'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r221'>221</a>. Porphyry (<cite>V. Pyth.</cite> c 15) has preserved a tradition to the effect that -Pythagoras recommended a flesh diet for athletes (Milo?). This story -must have originated at the same time as those related by Aristoxenos, -and in a similar way. In fact, Bernays has shown that it comes from -Herakleides of Pontos (<cite>Theophr. Schr.</cite> n. 8). Iamblichos (<cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 5. 25) -and others (Diog. viii. 13, 47) got out of this by supposing it referred to a -gymnast of the same name. We see here very distinctly how the -Neoplatonists for their own ends endeavoured to go back to the original -form of the Pythagorean legend, and to explain away the fourth century -reconstruction.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f222'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r222'>222</a>. For these see Diels, <cite>Vors.</cite> pp. 282 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f223'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r223'>223</a>. There is an excellent collection of Ἀκούσματα καὶ σύμβολα in Diels, -<cite>Vors.</cite> pp. 279 sqq., where the authorities will be found. It is impossible -to discuss these in detail here, but students of folklore will see at once to -what order of ideas they belong.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f224'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r224'>224</a>. Herakl. fr. <a href='#He.17'>17</a> (R. P. 31 a). The word ἱστορίη is in itself quite general. -What it chiefly means here we see from a valuable notice preserved by -Iamblichos, <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 89, ἐκαλεῖτο δὲ ἡ γεωμετρία πρὸς Πυθαγόρου ἱστορία. -Tannery’s interpretation of this statement is based on a misunderstanding, -and need not be discussed here.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f225'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r225'>225</a>. Herod. iv. 95.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f226'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r226'>226</a>. Arist. Περὶ τῶν Πυθαγορείων, fr. 186, 1510 a 39, Πυθαγόρας Μνησάρχου -υἱὸς τὸ μὲν πρῶτον διεπονεῖτο περὶ τὰ μαθήματα καὶ τοὺς ἀριθμούς, ὕστερον -δέ ποτε καὶ τῆς Φερεκύδου τερατοποιΐας οὐκ ἀπέστη.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f227'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r227'>227</a>. Its immediate source is to be found in Plato, <cite>Laws</cite>, 790 d 2 sqq., -where the Korybantic rites are adduced as an instance. For a full account -see Rohde, <cite>Psyche</cite>, p. 336, n. 2.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f228'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r228'>228</a>. Plato gives this as the Pythagorean view in <cite>Phd.</cite> 62 b, for the -interpretation of which cf. Espinas in <cite>Arch.</cite> viii. pp. 449 sqq. Plato -distinctly implies that it was not merely the theory of Philolaos, but -something older.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f229'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r229'>229</a>. See Döring in <cite>Arch.</cite> v. pp. 505 sqq. There seems to be a reference to -the theory of the “three lives” in Herakleitos, fr. <a href='#He.111'>111</a>. It was apparently -taught in the Pythagorean Society of Phleious; for Herakleides made -Pythagoras expound it in a conversation with the tyrant of Phleious -(Cic. <cite>Tusc.</cite> v. 3; Diog. pr. 12, viii. 8), and it is developed by Plato in a -dialogue which is, as it were, dedicated to Echekrates. If it should be -thought that this is interpreting Pythagoras too much in the light of -Schopenhauer, it may be answered that even the Orphics came very near -such a theory. The soul must not drink of Lethe, but go past it and -drink of the water of Memory, before it can claim to become one of the -heroes. This has obvious points of contact with Plato’s ἀνάμνησις, and the -only question is how much of the <cite>Phaedo</cite> we are to ascribe to Pythagorean -sources. A great deal, I suspect. See Prof. Stewart’s <cite>Myths of Plato</cite>, -pp. 152 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f230'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r230'>230</a>. Stob. i. p. 20, 1, ἐκ τῶν Ἀριστοξένου περὶ ἀριθμητικῆς, Τὴν δὲ περὶ -τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς πραγματείαν μάλιστα πάντων τιμῆσαι δοκεῖ Πυθαγόρας καὶ -προαγαγεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσθεν ἀπαγαγὼν ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ἐμπόρων χρείας.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f231'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r231'>231</a>. Apart from the story in Iamblichos (<cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 148) that Eurytos heard -the voice of Philolaos from the grave after he had been many years dead, it -is to be noticed that he is mentioned after him in the statement of -Aristoxenos referred to (Diog. viii. 46; R. P. 62).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f232'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r232'>232</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Ν, 5. 1092 b 8 (R. P. 76 a). Aristotle does not quote the -authority of Archytas here, but the source of his statement is made quite -clear by Theophr. <cite>Met.</cite> p. vi. a 19 (Usener), τοῦτο γὰρ (sc. τὸ μὴ μέχρι -του προελθόντα παύεσθαι) τελέου καὶ φρονοῦντος, ὅπερ Ἀρχύτας ποτ’ ἔφη -ποιεῖν Εὔρυτον διατιθέντα τινὰς ψήφους· λέγειν γὰρ ὡς ὅδε μὲν ἀνθρώπου -ὁ ἀριθμός, ὅδε δὲ ἵππου, ὅδε δ’ ἄλλου τινὸς τυγχάνει.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f233'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r233'>233</a>. Arithmetic is older than geometry, and was much more advanced in -Egypt, though still in the form which the Greeks called λογιστική rather -than as ἀριθμητική proper. Even Plato puts Arithmetic before Geometry -in the <cite>Republic</cite> in deference to the tradition. His own theory of number, -however, suggested the inversion of this order which we find carried out -in Euclid.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f234'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r234'>234</a>. Nikomachos of Gerasa, <cite>Introd. Arithm.</cite> p. 83, 12, Hoche, Πρότερον δὲ -ἐπιγνωστέον ὅτι ἕκαστον γράμμα ᾧ σημειούμεθα ἀριθμόν, οἷον τὸ ι, ᾧ τὸ -δέκα, τὸ κ, ᾧ τὰ εἴκοσι, τὸ ω, ᾧ τὰ ὀκτακόσια, νόμῳ καὶ συνθήματι -ἀνθρωπίνῳ, ἀλλ’ οὐ φύσει σημαντικόν, ἐστι τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ, κ.τ.λ. The same -symbolism is used by Theo, <cite>Expositio</cite>, pp. 31 sqq. Cf. also Iambl. <cite>Introd.</cite> -p. 56, 27, Pistelli, ἰστέον γὰρ ὡς τὸ παλαιὸν φυσικώτερον οἱ πρόσθεν -ἐσημαίνοντο τὰς τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ ποσότητας, ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὥσπερ οἱ νῦν συμβολικῶς.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f235'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r235'>235</a>. Cf. the formula Οὐ μὰ τὸν ἁμετέρᾳ γενεᾷ παραδόντα τετρακτύν, -which is all the more likely to be old that it is put into the mouth of -Pythagoras by the forger of the Χρυσᾶ ἔπη, thus making him swear by himself! -See Diels, <cite>Arch.</cite> iii. p. 457. The Doric dialect shows, however, -that it belongs to the later generations of the school.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f236'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r236'>236</a>. Speusippos wrote a work on the Pythagorean numbers, based chiefly -on Philolaos, and a considerable fragment of it is preserved in the -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Theologumena Arithmetica</cite></span>. It will be found in Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vorsokratiker</cite></span>, -p. 235, 15, and is discussed by Tannery, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Science hellène</cite></span>, pp. 374 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f237'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r237'>237</a>. For these see Theon, <cite>Expositio</cite>, pp. 93 sqq. Hiller. The τετρακτύς -used by Plato in the <cite>Timaeus</cite> is the second described by Theon (<cite>Exp.</cite> -p. 94, 10 sqq.). It is no doubt Pythagorean, but hardly as old as -Pythagoras.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f238'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r238'>238</a>. Cf. Milhaud, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Philosophes géomètres</cite></span>, pp. 115 sqq. Aristotle puts the -matter thus (<cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 4. 203 a 13): περιτιθεμένων γὰρ τῶν γνωμόνων περὶ -τὸ ἓν καὶ χωρὶς ὁτὲ μὲν ἄλλο ἀεὶ γίγνεσθαι τὸ εἶδος, ὁτὲ δὲ ἕν. This is -more clearly stated by Ps.-Plut. (Stob. i. p. 22, 16), Ἔτι δὲ τῇ μονάδι τῶν -ἐφεξῆς περισσῶν περιτιθεμένων ὁ γινόμενος ἀεὶ τετράγωνός ἐστι· τῶν δὲ -ἀρτίων ὁμοίως περιτιθεμένων ἑτερομήκεις καὶ ἄνισοι πάντες ἀποβαίνουσιν, -ἴσως δὲ ἰσάκις οὐδείς. I cannot feel satisfied with any of the explanations -which have been given of the words καὶ χωρίς in the Aristotelian passage -(see Zeller, p. 351, n. 2), and I would therefore suggest ταῖς χώραις comparing -Boutheros (Stob. i. p. 19, 9), who says, according to the MS. reading, -Καὶ ὁ μὲν (ὁ περισσός), ὁπόταν γεννῶνται ἀνὰ λόγον καὶ πρὸς μονάδας, -ταῖς αὑτοῦ χώραις καταλαμβάνει τοὺς ταῖς γραμμαῖς περιεχομένους (sc. -ἀριθμούς).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f239'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r239'>239</a>. In the fragment referred to above (p. 113, <a href='#f236'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 236</ins></a>), Speusippos speaks -of four as the first pyramidal number; but this is taken from Philolaos, so -we cannot safely ascribe it to Pythagoras.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f240'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r240'>240</a>. We have ὅροι of a series (ἔκθεσις), then of a proportion, and in later -times of a syllogism. The signs :, ::, and ∴ are a survival of the original -use. The term χώρα is often used by the later Pythagoreans, though Attic -usage required χωρίον for a rectangle. The spaces between the γραμμαί -of the <em>abacus</em> and the chess-board were also called χῶραι.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f241'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r241'>241</a>. In his commentary on Euclid i. 44, Proclus tells us on the authority -of Eudemos that the παραβολή, ἔλλειψις, and ὑπερβολή of χωρία were -Pythagorean inventions. For an account of these and the subsequent -application of the terms in Conic Sections, see Milhaud, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Philosophes -géomètres</cite></span>, pp. 81 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f242'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r242'>242</a>. The verb ὑποτείνειν is, of course, used intransitively. The explanation -suggested in the text seems to me much simpler than that of Max -C. P. Schmidt (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Kulturhistorische Beiträge</cite></span>, Heft i. pp. 64 sqq.). He explains -the hypotenuse as the longest string in a triangular harp; but my view seems -more in accordance with analogy. So ἡ κάθετος is, literally, a plumb-line.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f243'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r243'>243</a>. The statement comes from Eudemos; for it is found in Proclus’s -commentary on Euclid i. 47. Whether historical or not, it is no Neopythagorean -fancy.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f244'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r244'>244</a>. Arist. <cite>An. Pr.</cite> Α, 23. 41 a 26, ὅτι ἀσύμμετρος ἡ διάμετρος διὰ τὸ -γίγνεσθαι τὰ περιττὰ ἴσα τοῖς ἀρτίοις συμμέτρου τεθείσης. The proofs -given at the end of Euclid’s Tenth Book (vol. iii. pp. 408 sqq., Heiberg) turn -on this very point. They are not Euclidean, and may be substantially -Pythagorean. Cf. Milhaud, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Philosophes géomètres</cite></span>, p. 94.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f245'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r245'>245</a>. Plato, <cite>Theaet.</cite> 147 d 3 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f246'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r246'>246</a>. How novel these consequences were, is shown by the fact that in <cite>Laws</cite>, -819 d 5, the Athenian Stranger says that he had only realised them late -in life.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f247'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r247'>247</a>. This version of the tradition is mentioned in Iamblichos, <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 247, -and looks older than the other, which we shall come to later (<a href='#sec148'>§ 148</a>). -Hippasos is the <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>enfant terrible</i></span> of Pythagoreanism, and the traditions about -him are full of instruction.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f248'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r248'>248</a>. Plato (<cite>Tim.</cite> 36 a 3) defines the harmonic mean as τὴν ... ταὐτῷ μέρει -τῶν ἄκρων αὐτῶν ὑπερέχουσαν καὶ ὑπερεχομένην. The harmonic mean of -12 and 6 is therefore 8; for 8 = 12 - 12/3 = 6 + 6/3.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f249'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r249'>249</a>. For these stories and a criticism of them, see Max C. P. Schmidt, -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Kulturhistorische Beiträge</cite></span>, i. pp. 78 sqq. The smith’s hammers belong -to the region of <em>Märchen</em>, and it is not true either that the notes would -be determined by the weight of the hammers, or that, if they were, -the weights hung to equal strings would produce the notes. These -inaccuracies were pointed out by Montucla (Martin, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Études sur le Timée</cite></span>, -i. p. 391).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f250'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r250'>250</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Μ, 4. 1078 b 21 (R. P. 78); Zeller, p. 390, n. 2. The -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Theologumena Arithmetica</cite></span>, wrongly attributed to Nikomachos of Gerasa, -is full of fanciful doctrine on this subject (R. P. 78 a). Alexander <cite>in Met.</cite> -p. 38, 8, gives a few definitions which may be old (R. P. 78 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f251'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r251'>251</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Δ, 6. 213 b 22 (R. P. 75).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f252'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r252'>252</a>. Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c). It is true that Diogenes is here drawing -from a biographical rather than a doxographical source (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 168), but -this touch can hardly be an invention.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f253'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r253'>253</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Μ, 3. 1091 a 13 (R. P. 74).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f254'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r254'>254</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Δ, 6. 213 b 23 (R. P. 75 a). The words διορίζει τὰς -φύσεις have caused unnecessary difficulty, because they have been supposed -to attribute the function of limiting to the ἄπειρον. Aristotle makes it quite -clear that his meaning is that stated in the text. Cf. especially the words -χωρισμοῦ τινος τῶν ἐφεξῆς καὶ διορίσεως. The term διωρισμένον is the -proper antithesis to συνεχές. In his work on the Pythagorean philosophy, -Aristotle used instead the phrase διορίζει τὰς χώρας (Stob. i. p. 156, 8; -R. P. 75), which is also quite intelligible if we remember what the Pythagoreans -meant by χώρα (cf. p. 115, <a href='#f240'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 240</ins></a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f255'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r255'>255</a>. Cf. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Δ, 6. 213 a 27, οἱ δ’ ἄνθρωποι ... φασὶν ἐν ᾦ ὅλως -μηδέν ἐστι, τοῦτ’ εἶναι κενόν, διὸ τὸ πλῆρες ἀέρος κενὸν εἶναι; <cite>de Part. An.</cite> Β, -10. 656 b 15, τὸ γὰρ κενὸν καλούμενον ἀέρος πλῆρές ἐστι; <cite>de An.</cite> Β, 10 419 -b 34, δοκεῖ γὰρ εἶναι κενὸν ὁ ἀήρ.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f256'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r256'>256</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 984 a 7 (R. P. 56 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f257'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r257'>257</a>. See Chap. IV. <a href='#sec91'>§ 91</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f258'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r258'>258</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 a 25 (R. P. 66).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f259'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r259'>259</a>. Plato, <cite>Tim.</cite> 58 d 2.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f260'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r260'>260</a>. This is quoted by Plutarch, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de def. orac.</cite></span> 422 b, d, from Phanias of -Eresos, who gave it on the authority of Hippys of Rhegion. If we may -follow Wilamowitz (<cite>Hermes</cite>, xix. p. 444) in supposing that this really -means Hippasos of Metapontion (and it was in Rhegion that the -Pythagoreans took refuge), this is a very valuable piece of evidence.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f261'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r261'>261</a>. Plato, <cite>Tim.</cite> 55 c 7 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f262'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r262'>262</a>. This will be found in Chap. IV. <a href='#sec93'>§ 93</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f263'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r263'>263</a>. For a clear statement of this view (which was still that of -Demokritos), see Lucretius, v. 621 sqq. The view that the planets had -an orbital motion from west to east is attributed by Aetios, ii. 16, 3, to -Alkmaion (<a href='#sec96'>§ 96</a>), which certainly implies that Pythagoras did not hold it. -As we shall see (<a href='#sec152'>§ 152</a>), it is far from clear that any of the Pythagoreans -did. It seems rather to be Plato’s discovery.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f264'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r264'>264</a>. See Chap. IV. <a href='#sec92'>§§ 92</a>-<a href='#sec93'>93</a>, and Chap. VII. <a href='#sec150'>§§ 150</a>-<a href='#sec152'>152</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f265'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r265'>265</a>. See fr. 7 (= 18 Karst.), <i>ap.</i> Diog. viii. 36 (R. P. 88).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f266'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r266'>266</a>. Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97). We know that Xenophanes referred to the -prediction of an eclipse by Thales (Chap. I. p. 41, <a href='#f62'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 62</ins></a>). We shall see that -his own view of the sun was hardly consistent with the possibility of such -a prediction, so it may have been in connexion with this that he opposed -him.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f267'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r267'>267</a>. Timaios <i>ap.</i> Clem. <cite>Strom.</cite> i. p. 533 (R. P. 95). There is only one -anecdote which actually represents Xenophanes in conversation with -Hieron (Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Reg. apophth.</cite></span> 175 e), but it is natural to understand Arist. -<cite>Met.</cite> Γ, 5. 1010 a 4 as an allusion to a remark made by Epicharmos to -him. Aristotle has more than one anecdote about Xenophanes, and it -seems most likely that he derived them from the romance of which -Xenophon’s <cite>Strom.</cite> is an echo.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f268'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r268'>268</a>. Clem., <i>loc. cit.</i>; Sext. <cite>Strom.</cite> i. 257. The mention of Cyrus is confirmed -by Hipp. <cite>Strom.</cite> i. 94. Diels thinks that Dareios was mentioned first for -metrical reasons; but no one has satisfactorily explained why Cyrus should -be mentioned at all, unless the early date was intended. On the whole -subject, see Jacoby, pp. 204 sqq., who is certainly wrong in supposing that -ἄχρι τῶν Δαρείου καὶ Κύρου χρόνων can mean “during the times of -Dareios and Cyrus.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f269'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r269'>269</a>. <cite>Strom.</cite> xxxi. p. 22. He assumes an early corruption of N into M. -As Apollodoros gave the Athenian archon, and not the Olympiad, we -might with more probability suppose a confusion due to two archons -having the same name.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f270'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r270'>270</a>. As Elea was founded by the Phokaians six years after they left -Phokaia (Herod. i. 164 sqq.) its date is just 540-39 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> Cf. the way in -which Apollodoros dated Empedokles by the era of Thourioi (<a href='#sec98'>§ 98</a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f271'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r271'>271</a>. Bergk (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Litteraturgesch.</cite></span> ii. p. 418, n. 23) took φροντίς here to mean -the literary work of Xenophanes, but it is surely an anachronism to suppose -that at this date it could be used like the Latin <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>cura</i></span>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f272'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r272'>272</a>. It was certainly another poem; for it is in hexameters while the -preceding fragment is in elegiacs.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f273'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r273'>273</a>. Xenophanes, fr. 7 (above, p. 124, <a href='#f265'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 265</ins></a>); Herakleitos, frs. <a href='#He.16'>16</a>, <a href='#He.17'>17</a> -(below, p. <a href='#Page_147'>147</a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f274'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r274'>274</a>. Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. 96 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f275'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r275'>275</a>. Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 96). The use of the old name Zankle, instead of -the later Messene, points to an early source for this statement—probably -the elegies of Xenophanes himself.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f276'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r276'>276</a>. Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97) says αὐτὸς ἐρραψῴδει τὰ ἑαυτοῦ, which is a very -different thing. Nothing is said anywhere of his reciting Homer, and the -word ῥαψῳδεῖν is used quite loosely for “to recite.” Gomperz’s imaginative -picture (<cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, vol. i. p. 155) has no further support than this single -word. Nor is there any trace of Homeric influence in the fragments. -They are in the usual elegiac style.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f277'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r277'>277</a>. The statement is justly suspected by Hiller (<cite>Rh. Mus.</cite> xxxiii. p. 529) -to come from Lobon of Argos, who provided the Seven Wise Men, -Epimenides, etc., with stichometric notices, all duly recorded in Diogenes. -Even if true, however, it proves nothing.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f278'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r278'>278</a>. Arist. <cite>Rhet.</cite> Β, 26. 1400 b 5 (R. P. 98 a). Anecdotes like this are -really anonymous. Plutarch transfers the story to Egypt (<cite>P. Ph. Fr.</cite> p. 22, -§ 13), and others tell it of Herakleitos. It is hardly safe to build on such -a foundation.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f279'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r279'>279</a>. Diog. ix. 18 (R. P. 97). The word ἐπικόπτων is a reminiscence of -Timon, fr. 60; Diels, Ξεινοφάνης ὑπάτυφος Ὁμηραπάτης ἐπικόπτης.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f280'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r280'>280</a>. The oldest reference to a poem Περὶ φύσεως is in the Geneva scholium -on <cite>Il.</cite> xxi. 196 (quoting fr. 30), and this goes back to Krates of Mallos. -We must remember, however, that such titles are of later date than Xenophanes, -and he had been given a place among philosophers long before -the time of Krates. All we can say, therefore, is that the Pergamene -librarians gave the title Περὶ φύσεως to some poem of Xenophanes.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f281'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r281'>281</a>. Simpl. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, p. 522, 7 (R. P. 97 b). It is true that two of our -fragments (25 and 26) are preserved by Simplicius, but he got them from -Alexander. Probably they were quoted by Theophrastos; for it is plain -that Alexander had no first-hand knowledge of Xenophanes either. If he -had, he would not have been taken in by <cite>M.X.G.</cite> (See p. 138, <a href='#f305'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 305</ins></a>.)</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f282'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r282'>282</a>. Three fragments (<a href='#Xe.27'>27</a>, <a href='#Xe.31'>31</a>, <a href='#Xe.33'>33</a>) come from the <cite>Homeric Allegories</cite>, two -(<a href='#Xe.30'>30</a>, <a href='#Xe.32'>32</a>) are from Homeric scholia.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f283'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r283'>283</a>. Cf. Wilamowitz, Progr. Gryphiswald. 1880.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f284'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r284'>284</a>. I formerly, with Zeller, preferred Theodoret’s reading αἴσθησιν, but -both Clement and Eusebios have ἐσθῆτα, and Theodoret is entirely -dependent on them.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f285'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r285'>285</a>. Reading ἠέρι for καὶ ῥεῖ with Diels.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f286'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r286'>286</a>. This fragment has been recovered in its entirety from the Geneva -scholia on Homer (see <cite>Arch.</cite> iv. p. 652). The words in brackets are added -by Diels. See also Praechter, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Zu Xenophanes”</span> (<cite>Philol.</cite> xviii. p. 308).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f287'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r287'>287</a>. The word is ὑπεριέμενος. This is quoted from the <cite>Allegories</cite> as an -explanation of the name Hyperion, and doubtless Xenophanes so meant it.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f288'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r288'>288</a>. Reading δεδοξάσθω with Wilamowitz.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f289'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r289'>289</a>. As Diels suggests, this probably refers to the stars, which Xenophanes -held to be clouds.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f290'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r290'>290</a>. Cf. Diels <i>ad loc.</i> (<cite>P. Ph. Fr.</cite> p. 44), <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“ut Sol et cetera astra, quae -cum in nebulas evanescerent, deorum simul opinio casura erat.”</span> Cf. <cite>Arch.</cite> -x. p. 533.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f291'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r291'>291</a>. Aet. ii. 18, 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 347), Ξενοφάνης τοὺς ἐπὶ τῶν πλοίων φαινομένους -οἷον ἀστέρας, οὓς καὶ Διοσκούρους καλοῦσί τινες, νεφέλια εἶναι κατὰ τὴν ποιὰν κίνησιν παραλάμποντα.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f292'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r292'>292</a>. The passages from Aetios are collected in <cite>P. Ph. Fr.</cite> pp. 32 sqq. -(<cite>Vors.</cite> p. 42).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f293'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r293'>293</a>. Aet. ii. 20, 3 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 348), Ξενοφάνης ἐκ νεφῶν πεπυρωμένων εἶναι -τὸν ἥλιον. Θεόφραστος ἐν τοῖς Φυσικοῖς γέγραφεν ἐκ πυριδίων μὲν τῶν -συναθροιζομένων ἐκ τῆς ὑγρᾶς ἀναθυμιάσεως, συναθροιζόντων δὲ τὸν ἥλιον.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f294'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r294'>294</a>. Aet. ii. 24, 9 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 355). πολλοὺς εἶναι ἡλίους καὶ σελήνας κατὰ -κλίματα τῆς γῆς καὶ ἀποτομὰς καὶ ζώνας, κατὰ δέ τινα καιρὸν ἐμπίπτειν τὸν -δίσκον εἴς τινα ἀποτομὴν τῆς γῆς οὐκ οἰκουμένην ὑφ’ ἡμῶν καὶ οὕτως ὥσπερ -κενεμβατοῦντα ἔκλειψιν ὑποφαίνειν· ὁ δ’ αὐτὸς τὸν ἥλιον εἰς ἄπειρον μὲν -προιέναι, δοκεῖν δὲ κυκλεῖσθαι διὰ τὴν ἀπόστασιν. It is clear that in this -notice ἔκλειψινἕκλειψιν has been erroneously substituted for δύσιν, as it has also in -Aet. ii. 24, 4 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 354).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f295'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r295'>295</a>. That this is the meaning of ὥσπερ κενεμβατοῦντα appears sufficiently -from the passages referred to in Liddell and Scott.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f296'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r296'>296</a>. Aet. ii. 13, 14 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 343), ἀναζωπυρεῖν νύκτωρ καθάπερ τοὺς ἄνθρακας.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f297'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r297'>297</a>. Aet. ii. 30, 8 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 362), τὸν μὲν ἥλιον χρήσιμον εἶναι πρὸς τὴν -τοῦ κόσμου καὶ τὴν τῶν ἐν αὐτῷ ζῴων γένεσίν τε καὶ διοίκησιν, τὴν δὲ -σελήνην παρέλκειν, The verb παρέλκειν means “to cork.” Cf. Aristophanes, -<cite>Pax</cite>, 1306.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f298'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r298'>298</a>. There is an interesting note on these in Gomperz’s <cite>Greek Thinkers</cite> -(Eng. trans. i. p. 551). I have translated his conjecture φυκῶν instead of -the MS. φωκῶν, as this is said to involve a palæontological impossibility, -and impressions of fucoids are found, not indeed in the quarries of Syracuse, -but near them. It is said also that there are no fossils in Paros, so the -anchovy must have been an imaginary one.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f299'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r299'>299</a>. Aet. ii. 1, 2 (<cite>Dox.</cite>, p. 327); Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c). It is true, -of course, that this passage of Diogenes comes from the biographical -compendium (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 168); but, for all that, it is a serious matter to deny -the Theophrastean origin of a statement found in Aetios, Hippolytos, and -Diogenes.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f300'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r300'>300</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 b 23 (R. P. 101), οὐδὲν διεσαφήνισεν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f301'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r301'>301</a>. This is given as an inference by Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 23, 18 (R. P. 108 b), -διὰ τὸ πανταχόθεν ὅμοιον. It does not merely come from <cite>M.X.G.</cite> -(R. P. 108), πάντῃ δ’ ὅμοιον ὄντα σφαιροειδῆ εἶναι. Hippolytos has it -too (<cite>Ref.</cite> i. 14; R. P. 102 a), so it goes back to Theophrastos. Timon -of Phleious understood Xenophanes in the same way; for he makes -him call the One ἴσον ἁπάντῃ (fr. 60, Diels = 40 Wachsm.; R. P. -102 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f302'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r302'>302</a>. Arist. <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Β, 13. 294 a 21 (R. P. 103 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f303'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r303'>303</a>. I take δαψιλός as an attribute and ἀπείρονα as predicate to both -subjects.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f304'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r304'>304</a>. <cite>Il.</cite> viii. 13-16, 478-481, especially the words οὐδ’ εἴ κε τὰ νείατα -πείραθ’ ἵκηαι | γαίης καὶ πόντοιο κ.τ.λ. <cite>Iliad</cite> viii. must have seemed a -particularly bad book to Xenophanes.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f305'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r305'>305</a>. In Bekker’s edition this treatise bears the title Περὶ Ξενοφάνους, -περὶ Ζήνωνος, περὶ Γοργίου, but the best MS. gives as the titles of its -three sections: (1) Περὶ Ζήνωνος, (2) Περὶ Ξενοφάνους, (3) Περὶ Γοργίου. -The first section, however, plainly refers to Melissos, so the whole treatise -is now entitled <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>De Melisso, Xenophane, Gorgia</cite></span> (<cite>M.X.G.</cite>). It has been -edited by Apelt in the Teubner Series, and more recently by Diels (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Abh. -der k. Preuss. Akad.</cite></span> 1900), who has also given the section dealing with -Xenophanes in <cite>P. Ph. Fr.</cite> pp. 24-29 (<cite>Vors.</cite> pp. 36 sqq.). He has now -withdrawn the view maintained in <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 108 that the work belongs to -the third century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, and holds that it was <i><span lang="la" xml:lang="la">a Peripatetico eclectico</span> (i.e. -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">sceptica, platonica, stoica admiscente) circa Christi natalem conscriptum</span></i>. -If that is so, there is no reason to doubt, as I formerly did, that the -second section is really meant to deal with Xenophanes. The writer would -have no first-hand knowledge of his poems, and the order in which the -philosophers are discussed is that of the passage in the <cite>Metaphysics</cite> which -suggested the whole thing. It is possible that a section on Parmenides -preceded what we now have.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f306'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r306'>306</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 b 21 (R. P. 101), πρῶτος τούτων ἑνίσας. The verb ἑνίζειν -occurs nowhere else, but is plainly formed on the analogy of μηδίζειν, -φιλιππίζειν, and the like. It is not likely that it means “to unify.” -Aristotle could easily have said ἑνώσας if he had meant that.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f307'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r307'>307</a>. <cite>Tht.</cite> 181 a 6, τοῦ ὅλου στασιῶται. The noun στασιῶτης has no other -meaning than “partisan.” There is no verb στασιοῦν “to make stationary,” -and such a formation would be against all analogy. The derivation -στασιώτας ... ἀπὸ τῆς στάσεως appears first in Sext. <cite>Math.</cite> x. 46, from -which passage we may infer that Aristotle used the word, not that he -gave the derivation.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f308'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r308'>308</a>. <cite>Soph.</cite> 242 d 5 (R. P. 101 b). If the passage implies that Xenophanes -settled at Elea, it equally implies this of his predecessors. But Elea was -not founded till Xenophanes was in the prime of life.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f309'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r309'>309</a>. <cite>Tht.</cite> 179 e 3, τῶν Ἡρακλειτείων ἤ, ὥσπερ σὺ λέγεις Ὁμηρείων καὶ ἔτι -παλαιοτέρων. In this passage, Homer stands to the Herakleiteans in -exactly the same relation as Xenophanes does to the Eleatics in the -<cite>Sophist.</cite></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f310'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r310'>310</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> 981 b 24. The words cannot mean “gazing up at the whole -heavens,” or anything of that sort. They are taken as I take them by -Bonitz (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>im Hinblicke auf den ganzen Himmel</i></span>) and Zeller (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>im Hinblick auf -das Weltganze</i></span>). The word ἀποβλέπειν had become much too colourless -to bear the other meaning, and οὐρανός, as we know, means what was later -called κόσμος.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f311'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r311'>311</a>. See above, p. 137, <a href='#f301'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 301</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f312'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r312'>312</a>. Diog. ix. 19 (R. P. 103 c), ὅλον δ’ ὁρᾶν καὶ ὅλον ἀκούειν, μὴ μέντοι -ἀναπνεῖν. See above, p. 120, <a href='#f252'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 252</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f313'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r313'>313</a>. [Plut.] <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 4, ἀποφαίνεται δὲ καὶ περὶ θεῶν ὡς οὐδεμιᾶς -ἡγεμονίας ἐν αὐτοῖς οὔσης· οὐ γὰρ ὅσιον δεσπόζεσθαί τινα τῶν θεῶν, -ἐπιδεῖσθαί τε μηδενὸς αὐτῶν μηδένα μηδ’ ὅλως, ἀκούειν δὲ καὶ ὁρᾶν καθόλου -καὶ μὴ κατὰ μέρος.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f314'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r314'>314</a>. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alterth.</cite></span> ii. § 466.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f315'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r315'>315</a>. Freudenthal, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Die Theologie des Xenophanes</cite></span>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f316'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r316'>316</a>. Xenophanes calls his god “greatest among gods and men,” but this is -simply a case of “polar expression,” to which parallels will be found in -Wilamowitz’s note to the <cite>Herakles</cite>, v. 1106. Cf. especially the statement -of Herakleitos (fr. <a href='#He.20'>20</a>) that “no one of gods or men” made the world.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f317'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r317'>317</a>. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Griechische Literatur</cite></span>, p. 38.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f318'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r318'>318</a>. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Parmenides Lehrgedicht</cite></span>, p. 9.</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_143'>143</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER III <br /> HERAKLEITOS OF EPHESOS</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Life of Herakleitos.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec63'></a>63. Herakleitos of Ephesos, son of Blyson, is said to -have “flourished” in Ol. LXIX. (504/3-501/0 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>);<a id='r319' /><a href='#f319' class='c014'><sup>[319]</sup></a> -that is to say, just in the middle of the reign of -Dareios, with whom several traditions connected him.<a id='r320' /><a href='#f320' class='c014'><sup>[320]</sup></a> -We shall see that Parmenides was assigned to the same -Olympiad, though for another reason (<a href='#sec84'>§ 84</a>). It is more -important, however, for our purpose to notice that, while -Herakleitos refers to Pythagoras and Xenophanes by -name and in the past tense (fr. <a href='#Xe.16'>16</a>), he is in turn -referred to by Parmenides (fr. 6). These references -are sufficient to mark his proper place in the history -of philosophy. Zeller holds, indeed, that he cannot -have published his work till after 478 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, on the -ground that the expulsion of his friend Hermodoros, -alluded to in fr. <a href='#He.114'>114</a>, could not have taken place -before the downfall of Persian rule. If that were -so, it might be hard to see how Parmenides could -have known the views of Herakleitos; but there is -surely no difficulty in supposing that the Ephesians -may have sent one of their foremost citizens into -banishment at a time when they were still paying -<span class='pageno' id='Page_144'>144</span>tribute to the Great King. The Persians never took -their internal self-government from the Ionian cities, -and the spurious <cite>Letters</cite> of Herakleitos show the -accepted view was that the expulsion of Hermodoros -took place during the reign of Dareios.<a id='r321' /><a href='#f321' class='c014'><sup>[321]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Sotion said that Herakleitos was a disciple of -Xenophanes,<a id='r322' /><a href='#f322' class='c014'><sup>[322]</sup></a> which is not probable; for Xenophanes -seems to have left Ionia for ever before Herakleitos -was born. More likely he was not a disciple of -any one; but it is clear, at the same time, that he -was acquainted both with the Milesian cosmology -and with the poems of Xenophanes. He also -knew something of the theories taught by Pythagoras -(fr. <a href='#He.17'>17</a>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Of the life of Herakleitos we really know nothing, -except, perhaps, that he belonged to the ancient royal -house and resigned the nominal position of Basileus -in favour of his brother.<a id='r323' /><a href='#f323' class='c014'><sup>[323]</sup></a> The origin of the other -statements bearing on it is quite transparent.<a id='r324' /><a href='#f324' class='c014'><sup>[324]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>His book.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec64'></a>64. We do not know the title of the work of -Herakleitos<a id='r325' /><a href='#f325' class='c014'><sup>[325]</sup></a>—if, indeed, it had one at all—and it -<span class='pageno' id='Page_145'>145</span>is not very easy to form a clear idea of its contents. -We are told that it was divided into three discourses: -one dealing with the universe, one political, and one -theological.<a id='r326' /><a href='#f326' class='c014'><sup>[326]</sup></a> It is not likely that this division is -due to Herakleitos himself; all we can infer from the -statement is that the work fell naturally into these -three parts when the Stoic commentators took their -editions of it in hand.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The style of Herakleitos is proverbially obscure, -and, at a later date, got him the nickname of “the -Dark.”<a id='r327' /><a href='#f327' class='c014'><sup>[327]</sup></a> Now the fragments about the Delphic god -and the Sibyl (frs. <a href='#He.11'>11</a> and <a href='#He.12'>12</a>) seem to show that -he was quite conscious of writing an oracular style, -and we have to ask why he did so. In the first place, -it was the manner of the time.<a id='r328' /><a href='#f328' class='c014'><sup>[328]</sup></a> The stirring events -of the age, and the influence of the religious revival, -gave something of a prophetic tone to all the leaders -of thought. Pindar and Aischylos have it too. They -all feel that they are in some measure inspired. It is -also the age of great individualities, who are apt to be -solitary and disdainful. Herakleitos at least was so. -If men cared to dig for the gold they might find it -(fr. <a href='#He.8'>8</a>); if not, they must be content with straw (fr. -<a href='#He.51'>51</a>). This seems to have been the view taken by -Theophrastos, who said that the headstrong temperament -of Herakleitos sometimes led him into incompleteness -and inconsistencies of statement.<a id='r329' /><a href='#f329' class='c014'><sup>[329]</sup></a> But that is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_146'>146</span>a very different thing from studied obscurity and the -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>disciplina arcani</i></span> sometimes attributed to him; if -Herakleitos does not go out of his way to make his -meaning clear, neither does he hide it (fr. <a href='#He.11'>11</a>).</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The fragments.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec65'></a>65. I give a version of the fragments according to -the arrangement of Mr. Bywater’s exemplary edition.<a id='r330' /><a href='#f330' class='c014'><sup>[330]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>(1) It is wise to hearken, not to me, but to my Word, and -to confess that all things are one.<a id='r331' /><a href='#f331' class='c014'><sup>[331]</sup></a> R. P. 40.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.2'></a>(2) Though this Word<a id='r332' /><a href='#f332' class='c014'><sup>[332]</sup></a> is true evermore, yet men are as -unable to understand it when they hear it for the first time as -before they have heard it at all. For, though all things come -to pass in accordance with this Word, men seem as if they -had no experience of them, when they make trial of words and -deeds such as I set forth, dividing each thing according to its -nature and showing how it truly is. But other men know not -what they are doing when awake, even as they forget what they -do in sleep. R. P. 32.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_147'>147</span>(3) Fools when they do hear are like the deaf: of them -does the saying bear witness that they are absent when -present. R. P. 31 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(4) Eyes and ears are bad witnesses to men if they have -souls that understand not their language. R. P. 42.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(5) The many do not take heed of such things as those -they meet with, nor do they mark them when they are taught, -though they think they do.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(6) Knowing not how to listen nor how to speak.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(7) If you do not expect the unexpected, you will not find -it; for it is hard to be sought out and difficult.<a id='r333' /><a href='#f333' class='c014'><sup>[333]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.8'></a>(8) Those who seek for gold dig up much earth and find a -little. R. P. 44 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.10'></a>(10) Nature loves to hide. R. P. 34 f.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.11'></a>(11) The lord whose is the oracle at Delphoi neither utters -nor hides his meaning, but shows it by a sign. R. P. 30 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.12'></a>(12) And the Sibyl, with raving lips uttering things mirthless, -unbedizened, and unperfumed, reaches over a thousand -years with her voice, thanks to the god in her. R. P. 30 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(13) The things that can be seen, heard, and learned are -what I prize the most. R. P. 42.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(14) ... bringing untrustworthy witnesses in support of -disputed points.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(15) The eyes are more exact witnesses than the ears.<a id='r334' /><a href='#f334' class='c014'><sup>[334]</sup></a> -R. P. 42 c.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.16'></a>(16) The learning of many things teacheth not understanding, -else would it have taught Hesiod and Pythagoras, and -again Xenophanes and Hekataios. R. P. 31.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.17'></a>(17) Pythagoras, son of Mnesarchos, practised inquiry -beyond all other men, and choosing out these writings, claimed -for his own wisdom what was but a knowledge of many -things and an art of mischief.<a id='r335' /><a href='#f335' class='c014'><sup>[335]</sup></a> R. P. 31 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_148'>148</span><a id='He.18'></a>(18) Of all whose discourses I have heard, there is not one -who attains to understanding that wisdom is apart from all. -R. P. 32 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(19) Wisdom is one thing. It is to know the thought by -which all things are steered through all things. R. P. 40.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.20'></a>(20) This world,<a id='r336' /><a href='#f336' class='c014'><sup>[336]</sup></a> which is the same for all, no one of gods -or men has made; but it was ever, is now, and ever shall be -an ever-living Fire, with measures kindling, and measures -going out. R. P. 35.<a id='r337' /><a href='#f337' class='c014'><sup>[337]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.21'></a>(21) The transformations of Fire are, first of all, sea; and -half of the sea is earth, half whirlwind.<a id='r338' /><a href='#f338' class='c014'><sup>[338]</sup></a> ... R. P. 35 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.22'></a>(22) All things are an exchange for Fire, and Fire for -all things, even as wares for gold and gold for wares. -R. P. 35.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.23'></a>(23) It becomes liquid sea, and is measured by the same -tale as before it became earth.<a id='r339' /><a href='#f339' class='c014'><sup>[339]</sup></a> R. P. 39.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.24'></a>(24) Fire is want and surfeit. R. P. 36 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_149'>149</span>(25) Fire lives the death of air,<a id='r340' /><a href='#f340' class='c014'><sup>[340]</sup></a> and air lives the death of -fire; water lives the death of earth, earth that of water. -R. P. 37.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.26'></a>(26) Fire in its advance will judge and convict<a id='r341' /><a href='#f341' class='c014'><sup>[341]</sup></a> all things. -R. P. 36 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(27) How can one hide from that which never sets?</p> - -<p class='c002'>(28) It is the thunderbolt that steers the course of all -things. R. P. 35 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.29'></a>(29) The sun will not overstep his measures; if he does, -the Erinyes, the handmaids of Justice, will find him out. -R. P. 39.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(30) The limit of East and West is the Bear; and opposite -the Bear is the boundary of bright Zeus.<a id='r342' /><a href='#f342' class='c014'><sup>[342]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>(31) If there were no sun it would be night, for all the -other stars could do.<a id='r343' /><a href='#f343' class='c014'><sup>[343]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.32'></a>(32) The sun is new every day.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(33) See above, Chap. I. p. 41, <a href='#f62'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 62</ins></a>.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(34) ... the seasons that bring all things.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.35'></a>(35) Hesiod is most men’s teacher. Men think he knew -very many things, a man who did not know day or night! -They are one.<a id='r344' /><a href='#f344' class='c014'><sup>[344]</sup></a> R. P. 39 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.36'></a>(36) God is day and night, winter and summer, war and -peace, surfeit and hunger; but he takes various shapes, just as -fire,<a id='r345' /><a href='#f345' class='c014'><sup>[345]</sup></a> when it is mingled with spices, is named according to the -savour of each. R. P. 39 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_150'>150</span>(37) If all things were turned to smoke, the nostrils would -distinguish them.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(38) Souls smell in Hades. R. P. 46 d.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.39'></a>(39) Cold things become warm, and what is warm cools; -what is wet dries, and the parched is moisted.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(40) It scatters and it gathers; it advances and retires.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.41'></a>(41, 42) You cannot step twice into the same rivers; for -fresh waters are ever flowing in upon you. R. P. 33.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.43'></a>(43) Homer was wrong in saying: “Would that strife -might perish from among gods and men!” He did not see -that he was praying for the destruction of the universe; for, if -his prayer were heard, all things would pass away.<a id='r346' /><a href='#f346' class='c014'><sup>[346]</sup></a>... R. P. -34 d.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.44'></a>(44) War is the father of all and the king of all; and some -he has made gods and some men, some bond and some free. -R. P. 34.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.45'></a>(45) Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with -itself. It is an attunement of opposite tensions,<a id='r347' /><a href='#f347' class='c014'><sup>[347]</sup></a> like that of -the bow and the lyre. R. P. 34.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(46) It is the opposite which is good for us.<a id='r348' /><a href='#f348' class='c014'><sup>[348]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.47'></a>(47) The hidden attunement is better than the open. -R. P. 34.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(48) Let us not conjecture at random about the greatest -things.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(49) Men that love wisdom must be acquainted with very -many things indeed.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(50) The straight and the crooked path of the fuller’s comb -is one and the same.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.51'></a>(51) Asses would rather have straw than gold. R. P. 31 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_151'>151</span>(51<i>a</i>) Oxen are happy when they find bitter vetches to -eat.<a id='r349' /><a href='#f349' class='c014'><sup>[349]</sup></a> R. P. 48 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.52'></a>(52) The sea is the purest and the impurest water. Fish -can drink it, and it is good for them; to men it is undrinkable -and destructive. R. P. 47 c.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(53) Swine wash in the mire, and barnyard fowls in dust.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(54) ... to delight in the mire.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(55) Every beast is driven to pasture with blows.<a id='r350' /><a href='#f350' class='c014'><sup>[350]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>(56) Same as 45.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.57'></a>(57) Good and ill are one. R. P. 47 c.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.58'></a>(58) Physicians who cut, burn, stab, and rack the sick, -demand a fee for it which they do not deserve to get. R. P. -47 c.<a id='r351' /><a href='#f351' class='c014'><sup>[351]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.59'></a>(59) Couples are things whole and things not whole, what -is drawn together and what is drawn asunder, the harmonious -and the discordant. The one is made up of all things, and -all things issue from the one.<a id='r352' /><a href='#f352' class='c014'><sup>[352]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.60'></a>(60) Men would not have known the name of justice if -these things were not.<a id='r353' /><a href='#f353' class='c014'><sup>[353]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.61'></a>(61) To God all things are fair and good and right, but -men hold some things wrong and some right. R. P. 45.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.62'></a>(62) We must know that war is common to all and strife -is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away (?) -through strife.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.64'></a>(64) All the things we see when awake are death, even as -all we see in slumber are sleep. R. P. 42 c.<a id='r354' /><a href='#f354' class='c014'><sup>[354]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.65'></a>(65) The wise is one only. It is unwilling and willing to -be called by the name of Zeus. R. P. 40.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(66) The bow (βιός) is called life (βίος), but its work is -death. R. P. 49 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_152'>152</span>(67) Mortals are immortals and immortals are mortals, the -one living the others’ death and dying the others’ life. R. P. 46.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.68'></a>(68) For it is death to souls to become water, and death -to water to become earth. But water comes from earth; and -from water, soul. R. P. 38.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.69'></a>(69) The way up and the way down is one and the same. -R. P. 36 d.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(70) In the circumference of a circle the beginning and -end are common.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(71) You will not find the boundaries of soul by travelling -in any direction, so deep is the measure of it.<a id='r355' /><a href='#f355' class='c014'><sup>[355]</sup></a> R. P. 41 d.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.72'></a>(72) It is pleasure to souls to become moist. R. P. 46 c.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.73'></a>(73) A man, when he gets drunk, is led by a beardless -lad, tripping, knowing not where he steps, having his soul -moist. R. P. 42.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.74'></a>(74-76) The dry soul is the wisest and best.<a id='r356' /><a href='#f356' class='c014'><sup>[356]</sup></a> R. P. 42.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.77'></a>(77) Man is kindled and put out like a light in the night-time.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.78'></a>(78) And it is the same thing in us that is quick and dead, -awake and asleep, young and old; the former are shifted<a id='r357' /><a href='#f357' class='c014'><sup>[357]</sup></a> and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_153'>153</span>become the latter, and the latter in turn are shifted and -become the former. R. P. 47.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(79) Time is a child playing draughts, the kingly power is -a child’s. R. P. 40 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(80) I have sought for myself. R. P. 48.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.81'></a>(81) We step and do not step into the same rivers; we are -and are not. R. P. 33 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.82'></a>(82) It is a weariness to labour for the same masters and -be ruled by them.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.83'></a>(83) It rests by changing.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.84'></a>(84) Even the posset separates if it is not stirred.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.85'></a>(85) Corpses are more fit to be cast out than dung.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(86) When they are born, they wish to live and to meet -with their dooms—or rather to rest—and they leave children -behind them to meet with their dooms in turn.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(87-89) A man may be a grandfather in thirty years.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(90) Those who are asleep are fellow-workers....</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.91a'></a>(91<i>a</i>) Thought is common to all.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(91<i>b</i>) Those who speak with understanding must hold fast -to what is common to all as a city holds fast to its law, and -even more strongly. For all human laws are fed by the one -divine law. It prevails as much as it will, and suffices for all -things with something to spare. R. P. 43.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.92'></a>(92) So we must follow the common,<a id='r358' /><a href='#f358' class='c014'><sup>[358]</sup></a> yet the many live as -if they had a wisdom of their own. R. P. 44.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.93'></a>(93) They are estranged from that with which they have -most constant intercourse.<a id='r359' /><a href='#f359' class='c014'><sup>[359]</sup></a> R. P. 32 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.94'></a>(94) It is not meet to act and speak like men asleep.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.95'></a>(95) The waking have one common world, but the sleeping -turn aside each into a world of his own.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_154'>154</span><a id='He.96'></a>(96) The way of man has no wisdom, but that of God has. -R. P. 45.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.97'></a>(97) Man is called a baby by God, even as a child by a -man. R. P. 45.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.98'></a>(98, 99) The wisest man is an ape compared to God, just -as the most beautiful ape is ugly compared to man.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(100) The people must fight for its law as for its walls. -R. P. 43 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.101'></a>(101) Greater deaths win greater portions. R. P. 49 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.102'></a>(102) Gods and men honour those who are slain in battle. -R. P. 49 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.103'></a>(103) Wantonness needs putting out, even more than a -house on fire. R. P. 49 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.104'></a>(104) It is not good for men to get all they wish to get. -It is sickness that makes health pleasant; evil,<a id='r360' /><a href='#f360' class='c014'><sup>[360]</sup></a> good; hunger, -plenty; weariness, rest. R. P. 48 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.105'></a>(105-107) It is hard to fight with one’s heart’s desire.<a id='r361' /><a href='#f361' class='c014'><sup>[361]</sup></a> -Whatever it wishes to get, it purchases at the cost of soul. -R. P. 49 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.108'></a>(108, 109) It is best to hide folly; but it is hard in times -of relaxation, over our cups.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(110) And it is law, too, to obey the counsel of one. -R. P. 49 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.111'></a>(111) For what thought or wisdom have they? They -follow the poets and take the crowd as their teacher, knowing -not that there are many bad and few good. For even the -best of them choose one thing above all others, immortal -glory among mortals, while most of them are glutted like -beasts.<a id='r362' /><a href='#f362' class='c014'><sup>[362]</sup></a> R. P. 31 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(112) In Priene lived Bias, son of Teutamas, who is of -more account than the rest. (He said, “Most men are bad.”)</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.113'></a>(113) One is ten thousand to me, if he be the best. R. P. -31 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.114'></a>(114) The Ephesians would do well to hang themselves, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_155'>155</span>every grown man of them, and leave the city to beardless -lads; for they have cast out Hermodoros, the best man among -them, saying, “We will have none who is best among us; if -there be any such, let him be so elsewhere and among others.” -R. P. 29 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(115) Dogs bark at every one they do not know. R. P. -31 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(116) ... (The wise man) is not known because of men’s -want of belief.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(117) The fool is fluttered at every word. R. P. 44 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(118) The most esteemed of them knows but fancies;<a id='r363' /><a href='#f363' class='c014'><sup>[363]</sup></a> -yet of a truth justice shall overtake the artificers of lies and -the false witnesses.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(119) Homer should be turned out of the lists and whipped, -and Archilochos likewise. R. P. 31.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(120) One day is like any other.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(121) Man’s character is his fate.<a id='r364' /><a href='#f364' class='c014'><sup>[364]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.122'></a>(122) There awaits men when they die such things as they -look not for nor dream of. R. P. 46 d.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.123'></a>(123) ... <a id='r365' /><a href='#f365' class='c014'><sup>[365]</sup></a>that they rise up and become the wakeful -guardians of the quick and dead. R. P. 46 d.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.124'></a>(124) Night-walkers, Magians, priests of Bakchos and -priestesses of the wine-vat, mystery-mongers....</p> - -<p class='c002'>(125) The mysteries practised among men are unholy -mysteries. R. P. 48.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.126'></a>(126) And they pray to these images, as if one were to -talk with a man’s house, knowing not what gods or heroes are. -R. P. 49 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.127'></a>(127) For if it were not to Dionysos that they made a -procession and sang the shameful phallic hymn, they would be -acting most shamelessly. But Hades is the same as Dionysos -<span class='pageno' id='Page_156'>156</span>in whose honour they go mad and keep the feast of the wine-vat. -R. P. 49.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='He.130'></a>(129, 130) They vainly purify themselves by defiling themselves -with blood, just as if one who had stepped into the mud -were to wash his feet in mud. Any man who marked him -doing thus, would deem him mad. R. P. 49 a.</p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>The doxographical tradition.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec66'></a>66. It will be seen that some of these fragments -are far from clear, and there are probably not a few of -which the meaning will never be recovered. We -naturally turn, then, to the doxographers for a clue; -but, as ill-luck will have it, they are far less instructive -with regard to Herakleitos than we have found them -in other cases. We have, in fact, two great difficulties -to contend with. The first is the unusual weakness of -the doxographical tradition itself. Hippolytos, upon -whom we can generally rely for a fairly accurate -account of what Theophrastos really said, derived the -material for his first four chapters, which treat of -Thales, Pythagoras, Herakleitos, and Empedokles, not -from the excellent epitome which he afterwards used, -but from a biographical compendium,<a id='r366' /><a href='#f366' class='c014'><sup>[366]</sup></a> which consisted -for the most part of apocryphal anecdotes and apophthegms. -It was based, further, on some writer of -<cite>Successions</cite> who regarded Herakleitos and Empedokles -as Pythagoreans. They are therefore placed side -by side, and their doctrines are hopelessly mixed up -together. The link between Herakleitos and the -Pythagoreans was Hippasos of Metapontion, in whose -system, as we know, fire played an important part. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_157'>157</span>Theophrastos, following Aristotle, had spoken of the -two in the same sentence, and this was enough to put -the writers of <cite>Successions</cite> off the track.<a id='r367' /><a href='#f367' class='c014'><sup>[367]</sup></a> We are forced, -then, to look to the more detailed of the two accounts -of the opinions of Herakleitos given in Diogenes,<a id='r368' /><a href='#f368' class='c014'><sup>[368]</sup></a> which -goes back to the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Vetusta Placita</cite></span>, and is, fortunately, -pretty full and accurate. All our other sources are -more or less tainted.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The second difficulty which we have to face is -even more serious. Most of the commentators on -Herakleitos mentioned in Diogenes were Stoics,<a id='r369' /><a href='#f369' class='c014'><sup>[369]</sup></a> and -it is certain that their paraphrases were sometimes -taken for the original. Now, the Stoics held the -Ephesian in peculiar veneration, and sought to -interpret him as far as possible in accordance with -their own system. Further, they were fond of “accommodating”<a id='r370' /><a href='#f370' class='c014'><sup>[370]</sup></a> -the views of earlier thinkers to their own, -and this has had serious consequences. In particular, -the Stoic theories of the λόγος and the ἐκπύρωσις are -constantly ascribed to Herakleitos by our authorities, -and the very fragments are adulterated with scraps of -Stoic terminology.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The discovery of Herakleitos.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec67'></a>67. Herakleitos looks down not only on the mass -of men, but on all previous inquirers into nature. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_158'>158</span>This must mean that he believed himself to have -attained insight into some truth which had not -hitherto been recognised, though it was, as it were, -staring men in the face (fr. <a href='#He.93'>93</a>). Clearly, then, if we -wish to get at the central thing in his teaching, we -must try to find out what he was thinking of when he -launched into those denunciations of human dulness -and ignorance.<a id='r371' /><a href='#f371' class='c014'><sup>[371]</sup></a> The answer seems to be given in two -fragments, <a href='#He.18'>18</a> and <a href='#He.45'>45</a>. From them we gather that -the truth hitherto ignored is that the many apparently -independent and conflicting things we know are really -one, and that, on the other hand, this one is also many. -The “strife of opposites” is really an “attunement” -(ἁρμονία). From this it follows that wisdom is not -a knowledge of many things, but the perception of the -underlying unity of the warring opposites. That this -really was the fundamental thought of Herakleitos is -stated by Philo. He says: “For that which is made -up of both the opposites is one; and, when the one is -divided, the opposites are disclosed. Is not this just -what the Greeks say their great and much belauded -Herakleitos put in the forefront of his philosophy as -summing it all up, and boasted of as a new discovery?”<a id='r372' /><a href='#f372' class='c014'><sup>[372]</sup></a> -We shall take the elements of this theory -one by one, and see how they are to be understood.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The One and the Many.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec68'></a>68. Anaximander had taught already that the -opposites were separated out from the Boundless, but -passed away into it once more, so paying the penalty -for their unjust encroachments on one another. It is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_159'>159</span>here implied that there is something wrong in the war -of opposites, and that the existence of the Many is a -breach in the unity of the One. The truth which -Herakleitos proclaimed was that there is no One -without the Many, and no Many without the One. -The world is at once one and many, and it is just the -“opposite tension” of the Many that constitutes the -unity of the One.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The credit of having been the first to see this is -expressly assigned to Herakleitos by Plato. In the -<cite>Sophist</cite> (242 d), the Eleatic stranger, after explaining -how the Eleatics maintained that what we call many -is really one, proceeds:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>But certain Ionian and (at a later date) certain Sicilian -Muses remarked that it was safest to unite these two things, -and to say that reality is both many and one, and is kept -together by Hate and Love. “For,” say the more severe -Muses, “in its division it is always being brought together” -(cf. fr. <a href='#He.59'>59</a>); while the softer Muses relaxed the requirement -that this should always be so, and said that the All was -alternately one and at peace through the power of Aphrodite, -and many and at war with itself because of something they -called Strife.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>In this passage the Ionian Muses stand, of course, -for Herakleitos, and the Sicilian for Empedokles. We -remark also that the differentiation of the one into -many, and the integration of the many into one, are -both eternal and simultaneous, and that this is the -ground upon which the system of Herakleitos is contrasted -with that of Empedokles. We shall come -back to that point again. Meanwhile we confine ourselves -to this, that, according to Plato, Herakleitos -taught that reality was at once many and one.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We must be careful, however, not to imagine that -<span class='pageno' id='Page_160'>160</span>what Herakleitos thus discovered was a logical principle. -This was the mistake of Lassalle’s book.<a id='r373' /><a href='#f373' class='c014'><sup>[373]</sup></a> The identity -in and through difference which he proclaimed was -purely physical; logic did not yet exist, and as the -principle of identity had not been formulated, it would -have been impossible to protest against an abstract -application of it. The identity which he explains as -consisting in difference is simply that of the primary -substance in all its manifestations. This identity had -been realised already by the Milesians, but they had -found a difficulty in the difference. Anaximander had -treated the strife of opposites as an “injustice,” and -what Herakleitos set himself to show was that, on the -contrary, it was the highest justice (fr. <a href='#He.62'>62</a>).</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Fire.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec69'></a>69. All this made it necessary for him to seek out a -new primary substance. He wanted not merely something -out of which the diversified world we know might -<span class='pageno' id='Page_161'>161</span>conceivably be made, or from which opposites could be -“separated out,” but something which of its own nature -would pass into everything else, while everything else -would pass in turn into it. This he found in Fire, and -it is easy to see why, if we consider the phenomenon -of combustion, even as it appears to the plain man. -The quantity of fire in a flame burning steadily appears -to remain the same, the flame seems to be what we -call a “thing.” And yet the substance of it is continually -changing. It is always passing away in -smoke, and its place is always being taken by fresh -matter from the fuel that feeds it. This is just what -we want. If we regard the world as an “ever-living -fire” (fr. <a href='#He.20'>20</a>), we can understand how it is always -becoming all things, while all things are always returning -to it.<a id='r374' /><a href='#f374' class='c014'><sup>[374]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Flux.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec70'></a>70. This necessarily brings with it a certain way of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_162'>162</span>looking at the change and movement of the world. -Fire burns continuously and without interruption. It -is therefore always consuming fuel and always liberating -smoke. Everything is either mounting upwards to -serve as fuel, or sinking downwards after having -nourished the flame. It follows that the whole of -reality is like an ever-flowing stream, and that nothing -is ever at rest for a moment. The substance of the -things we see is in constant change. Even as we look -at them, some of the matter of which they are composed -has already passed into something else, while fresh -matter has come into them from another source. This -theory is usually summed up, appropriately enough, -in the phrase “All things are flowing” (πάντα ῥεῖ), -though, as it happens, it cannot be proved that this is -a quotation from Herakleitos. Plato, however, expresses -the idea quite clearly. “Nothing ever is, everything is -becoming”; “All things are in motion like streams”; -“All things are passing, and nothing abides”; “Herakleitos -says somewhere that all things pass and naught -abides; and, comparing things to the current of a river, -he says that you cannot step twice into the same stream” -(cf. fr. <a href='#He.41'>41</a>)—these are the terms in which he describes -the system. And Aristotle says the same thing, “All -things are in motion,” “nothing steadfastly is.”<a id='r375' /><a href='#f375' class='c014'><sup>[375]</sup></a> -Herakleitos held, in fact, that any given thing, however -stable in appearance, was merely a section in the -stream, and that the matter composing it was never -the same in any two consecutive moments of time. -We shall see presently how he conceived this process -to operate; meanwhile we remark that the idea was -<span class='pageno' id='Page_163'>163</span>not altogether novel, and that it is hardly the central -point in the system of Herakleitos. The Milesians -held a similar view. The flux of Herakleitos was at -most more unceasing and universal.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Upward and Downward path.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec71'></a>71. Herakleitos appears to have worked out the -details of the perpetual flux with reference to the -theories of Anaximenes.<a id='r376' /><a href='#f376' class='c014'><sup>[376]</sup></a> It is unlikely, however, that -he explained the transformations of matter by means -of rarefaction and condensation.<a id='r377' /><a href='#f377' class='c014'><sup>[377]</sup></a> Theophrastos, it -appears, suggested that he did; but he allowed it was -by no means clear. The passage from Diogenes which -we are about to quote has faithfully preserved this -touch.<a id='r378' /><a href='#f378' class='c014'><sup>[378]</sup></a> In the fragments, at any rate, we find -nothing about rarefaction and condensation. The -expression used is “exchange” (fr. <a href='#He.22'>22</a>); and this is -certainly a very good name for what happens when -fire gives out smoke and takes in fuel instead.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It has been pointed out that, in default of Hippolytos, -our best account of the Theophrastean doxography of -Herakleitos is the fuller of the two accounts given in -Laertios Diogenes. It is as follows:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>His opinions on particular points are these:—</p> - -<p class='c002'>He held that Fire was the element, and that all things -were an exchange for fire, produced by condensation and -rarefaction. But he explains nothing clearly. All things were -produced in opposition, and all things were in flux like a river.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The all is finite and the world is one. It arises from -fire, and is consumed again by fire alternately through all -eternity in certain cycles. This happens according to fate. -That which leads to the becoming of the opposites is called -War and Strife; that which leads to the final conflagration is -Concord and Peace.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_164'>164</span>He called change the upward and the downward path, and -held that the world comes into being in virtue of this. When -fire is condensed it becomes moist, and when compressed it -turns to water; water being congealed turns to earth, and -this he calls the downward path. And, again, the earth is in -turn liquefied, and from it water arises, and from that -everything else; for he refers almost everything to the -evaporation from the sea. This is the path upwards. -R. P. 36.</p> - -<p class='c002'>He held, too, that exhalations arose both from the sea and -the land; some bright and pure, others dark. Fire was -nourished by the bright ones, and moisture by the others.</p> - -<p class='c002'>He does not make it clear what is the nature of that which -surrounds the world. He held, however, that there were -bowls in it with the concave sides turned towards us, in which -the bright exhalations were collected and produced flames. -These were the heavenly bodies.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The flame of the sun was the brightest and warmest; for -the other heavenly bodies were more distant from the earth; -and for that reason gave less light and heat. The moon, on -the other hand, was nearer the earth; but it moved through -an impure region. The sun moved in a bright and unmixed -region, and at the same time was at just the right distance -from us. That is why it gives more heat and light. The -eclipses of the sun and moon were due to the turning of the -bowls upwards, while the monthly phases of the moon were -produced by a gradual turning of its bowl.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Day and night, months and seasons and years, rains and -winds, and things like these, were due to the different -exhalations. The bright exhalation, when ignited in the -circle of the sun, produced day, and the preponderance of the -opposite exhalations produced night. The increase of warmth -proceeding from the bright exhalation produced summer, and -the preponderance of moisture from the dark exhalation -produced winter. He assigns the causes of other things in -conformity with this.</p> - -<p class='c002'>As to the earth, he makes no clear statement about its -nature, any more than he does about that of the bowls.</p> - -<p class='c002'>These, then, were his opinions. R. P. 39 b.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_165'>165</span>It is obvious that, if we can trust this passage, it is -of the greatest possible value; and that, upon the whole, -we can trust it is shown by the fact that it follows the -exact order of topics to which all the doxographies -derived from the great work of Theophrastos adhere. -First we have the primary substance, then the world, -then the heavenly bodies, and lastly, meteorological -phenomena. We conclude, then, that it may be accepted -with the exceptions, firstly, of the probably erroneous -conjecture of Theophrastos as to rarefaction and -condensation mentioned above; and secondly, of some -pieces of Stoical interpretation which come from the -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Vetusta Placita</cite></span>.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Let us look at the details of the theory. The pure -fire, we are told, is to be found chiefly in the sun. -This, like the other heavenly bodies, is a trough or -bowl, or perhaps a sort of boat, with the concave side -turned towards us, in which the bright exhalations from -the sea collect and burn. How does the fire of the sun -pass into other forms? If we look at the fragments -which deal with the downward path, we find that the -first transformation that it undergoes is into sea, and -we are further told that half of the sea is earth and -half of it πρηστήρ (fr. <a href='#He.21'>21</a>). The full meaning of this -we shall see presently, but we must settle at once -what πρηστήρ is. Many theories have been advanced -upon the subject; but, so far as I know, no one<a id='r379' /><a href='#f379' class='c014'><sup>[379]</sup></a> has -yet proposed to take the word in the sense which it -always bears elsewhere, that, namely, of hurricane -accompanied by a fiery waterspout.<a id='r380' /><a href='#f380' class='c014'><sup>[380]</sup></a> Yet surely this is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_166'>166</span>just what is wanted. It is amply attested that -Herakleitos explained the rise of the sea to fire by -means of the bright evaporations; and we want a -similar meteorological explanation of the passing of -the fire back into sea. We want, in fact, something -which will stand equally for the smoke produced by the -burning of the sun and for the immediate stage between -fire and water. What could serve the turn better than -a fiery waterspout? It sufficiently resembles smoke to -be accounted for as the product of the sun’s combustion, -and it certainly comes down in the form of water. -And this interpretation becomes practically certain -when taken in connexion with the report of Aetios as -to the Herakleitean theory of πρηστῆρες. They were -due, we are told, “to the kindling and extinction of -clouds.”<a id='r381' /><a href='#f381' class='c014'><sup>[381]</sup></a> In other words, the bright vapour, after -kindling in the bowl of the sun and going out again, -reappears as the dark fiery storm-cloud, and so passes -once more into sea. At the next stage we find water -continually passing into earth. We are already -familiar with this idea (<a href='#sec10'>§ 10</a>), and no more need be said -about it. Turning to the “upward path,” we find that -the earth is liquefied in the same proportion as the sea -becomes earth, so that the sea is still “measured by -the same tale” (fr. <a href='#He.23'>23</a>). Half of it is earth and half of -it is πρηστήρ (fr. <a href='#He.21'>21</a>). This must mean that, at any -given moment, half of the sea is taking the downward -<span class='pageno' id='Page_167'>167</span>path, and has just been fiery storm-cloud, while half of -it is going up, and has just been earth. In proportion -as the sea is increased by rain, water passes into earth; -in proportion as the sea is diminished by evaporation, -it is fed by the earth. Lastly, the ignition of the -bright vapour from the sea in the bowl of the sun completes -the circle of the “upward and downward path.”</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Measure for measure.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec72'></a>72. The question now arises, How is it that, in spite -of this constant flux, things appear relatively stable? -The answer of Herakleitos was that it is owing to the -observance of the “measures,” in virtue of which the -aggregate bulk of each form of matter in the long run -remains the same, though its substance is constantly -changing. Certain “measures” of the “ever-living fire” -are always being kindled, while like “measures” are -always going out (fr. <a href='#He.20'>20</a>); and these measures the sun -will not exceed. All things are “exchanged” for fire -and fire for all things (fr. <a href='#He.22'>22</a>), and this implies that for -everything it takes, fire will give as much. “The sun -will not exceed his measures” (fr. <a href='#He.29'>29</a>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>And yet the “measures” are not to be regarded as -absolutely fixed. We gather from the passage of -Diogenes quoted above that Theophrastos spoke of an -alternate preponderance of the bright and dark -exhalations, and Aristotle speaks of Herakleitos as -explaining all things by evaporation.<a id='r382' /><a href='#f382' class='c014'><sup>[382]</sup></a> In particular, -the alternation of day and night, summer and winter, -were accounted for in this way. Now, in a passage of -the pseudo-Hippokratean treatise Περὶ διαίτης which is -almost certainly of Herakleitean origin,<a id='r383' /><a href='#f383' class='c014'><sup>[383]</sup></a> we read of an -<span class='pageno' id='Page_168'>168</span>“advance of fire and water” in connexion with day and -night and the courses of the sun and moon.<a id='r384' /><a href='#f384' class='c014'><sup>[384]</sup></a> In fr. <a href='#He.26'>26</a>, -again, we read of fire “advancing,” and all these things -seem to be intimately connected. We must therefore -try to see whether there is anything in the remaining -fragments that bears upon the subject.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Man</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec73'></a>73. In studying this alternate advance of fire -and water, it will be convenient to start with the -microcosm. We have more definite information about -the two exhalations in man than about the analogous -processes in the world at large, and it would seem that -Herakleitos himself explained the world by man rather -than man by the world. In a well-known passage, -Aristotle implies that soul is identical with the dry -exhalation,<a id='r385' /><a href='#f385' class='c014'><sup>[385]</sup></a> and this is fully confirmed by the fragments. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_169'>169</span>Man is made up of three things, fire, water, and earth. -But, just as in the macrocosm fire is identified with -the one wisdom, so in the microcosm the fire alone is -conscious. When it has left the body, the remainder, -the mere earth and water, is altogether worthless (fr. <a href='#He.85'>85</a>). -Of course, the fire which animates man is subject to -the “upward and downward path,” just as much as the -fire of the world. The Περὶ διαίτης has preserved the -obviously Herakleitean sentence: “All things are passing, -both human and divine, upwards and downwards -by exchanges.”<a id='r386' /><a href='#f386' class='c014'><sup>[386]</sup></a> We are just as much in perpetual -flux as anything else in the world. We are and are -not the same for two consecutive instants (fr. <a href='#He.81'>81</a>). -The fire in us is perpetually becoming water, and the -water earth; but, as the opposite process goes on -simultaneously, we appear to remain the same.<a id='r387' /><a href='#f387' class='c014'><sup>[387]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>(<i>a</i>) Sleeping and waking.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec74'></a>74. This, however, is not all. Man is subject to a -certain oscillation in his “measures” of fire and water, -and this gives rise to the alternations of sleeping and -waking, life and death. The <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>locus classicus</i></span> on this -subject is a passage of Sextus Empiricus, which -reproduces the account of the Herakleitean psychology -given by Ainesidemos (Skeptic, <i>c.</i> 80-50 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>).<a id='r388' /><a href='#f388' class='c014'><sup>[388]</sup></a> It -is as follows (R. P. 41):—</p> - -<div><span class='pageno' id='Page_170'>170</span></div> -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>The natural philosopher is of opinion that what surrounds -us<a id='r389' /><a href='#f389' class='c014'><sup>[389]</sup></a> is rational and endowed with consciousness. According -to Herakleitos, when we draw in this divine reason by means -of respiration, we become rational. In sleep we forget, but -at our waking we become conscious once more. For in sleep, -when the openings of the senses close, the mind which is in -us is cut off from contact with that which surrounds us, and -only our connexion with it by means of respiration is preserved -as a sort of root (from which the rest may spring again); -and, when it is thus separated, it loses the power of memory -that it had before. When we awake again, however, it looks -out through the openings of the senses, as if through windows, -and coming together with the surrounding mind, it assumes -the power of reason. Just, then, as embers, when they are -brought near the the fire, change and become red-hot, and go -out when they are taken away from it again, so does the -portion of the surrounding mind which sojourns in our body -become irrational when it is cut off, and so does it become of -like nature to the whole when contact is established through -the greatest number of openings.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>In this passage there is obviously a very large -admixture of later phraseology and of later ideas. In -particular, the identification of “that which surrounds -us” with the air cannot be Herakleitean; for Herakleitos -can have known nothing of air, which in his day -was regarded as a form of water (<a href='#sec27'>§ 27</a>). The -reference to the pores or openings of the senses is -probably foreign to him also; for the theory of pores -is due to Alkmaion (<a href='#sec96'>§ 96</a>). Lastly, the distinction -between mind and body is far too sharply drawn. On -the other hand, the important rôle assigned to -respiration may very well be Herakleitean; for we -<span class='pageno' id='Page_171'>171</span>have met with it already in Anaximenes. And we can -hardly doubt that the striking simile of the embers -which glow when they are brought near the fire is -genuine (cf. fr. <a href='#He.77'>77</a>). The true Herakleitean doctrine -doubtless was, that sleep was produced by the -encroachment of moist, dark exhalations from the -water in the body, which cause the fire to burn low. -In sleep, we lose contact with the fire in the world -which is common to all, and retire to a world of our -own (fr. <a href='#He.95'>95</a>). In a soul where the fire and water -are evenly balanced, the equilibrium is restored in the -morning by an equal advance of the bright exhalation.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>(<i>b</i>) Life and death.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec75'></a>75. But in no soul are the fire and water thus -evenly balanced for long. One or the other acquires -predominance, and the result in either case is death. -Let us take each of these cases in turn. It is death, we -know, to souls to become water (fr. <a href='#He.68'>68</a>); but that is -just what happens to souls which seek after pleasure. -For pleasure is a moistening of the soul (fr. <a href='#He.72'>72</a>), as -may be seen in the case of the drunken man, who, in -pursuit of it, has moistened his soul to such an extent -that he does not know where he is going (fr. <a href='#He.73'>73</a>). -Even in gentle relaxation over our cups, it is more -difficult to hide folly than at other times (fr. <a href='#He.108'>108</a>). -That is why it is so necessary for us to quench -wantonness (fr. <a href='#He.103'>103</a>); for whatever our heart’s desire -insists on it purchases at the price of life, that is, of the -fire within us (fr. <a href='#He.105'>105</a>). Take now the other case. -The dry soul, that which has least moisture, is the best -(fr. <a href='#He.74'>74</a>); but the preponderance of fire causes death as -much as that of water. It is a very different death, -however, and wins “greater portions” for those who -die it (fr. <a href='#He.101'>101</a>). Apparently those who fall in battle -<span class='pageno' id='Page_172'>172</span>share their lot (fr. <a href='#He.102'>102</a>). We have no fragment which -tells us directly what it is, but the class of utterances we -are about to look at next leaves little doubt on the -subject. Those who die the fiery and not the watery -death, become, in fact, gods, though in a different sense -from that in which the one Wisdom is god. It is -probable that the corrupt fragment <a href='#He.123'>123</a> refers to this -unexpected fate (fr. <a href='#He.122'>122</a>) that awaits men when they die.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Further, just as summer and winter are one, and -necessarily reproduce one another by their “opposite -tension,” so do life and death. They, too, are one, we -are told; and so are youth and age (fr. <a href='#He.78'>78</a>). It follows -that the soul will be now living and now dead; that it -will only turn to fire or water, as the case may be, to -recommence once more its unceasing upward and -downward path. The soul that has died from excess -of moisture sinks down to earth; but from the earth -comes water, and from water is once more exhaled a -soul (fr. <a href='#He.68'>68</a>). So, too, we are told (fr. 67) that gods -and men are really one. They live each others’ life, -and die each others’ death. Those mortals that die -the fiery death become immortal,<a id='r390' /><a href='#f390' class='c014'><sup>[390]</sup></a> they become the -guardians of the quick and the dead (fr. <a href='#He.123'>123</a>);<a id='r391' /><a href='#f391' class='c014'><sup>[391]</sup></a> and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_173'>173</span>those immortals become mortal in their turn. Everything -is really the death of something else (fr. <a href='#He.64'>64</a>). -The living and the dead are always changing places -(fr. 78), like the pieces on a child’s draught-board -(fr. 79), and this applies not only to the souls that -have become water, but to those that have become fire -and are now guardian spirits. The real weariness is -continuance in the same state (fr. <a href='#He.82'>82</a>), and the real rest -is change (fr. <a href='#He.83'>83</a>). Rest in any other sense is -tantamount to dissolution (fr. <a href='#He.84'>84</a>).<a id='r392' /><a href='#f392' class='c014'><sup>[392]</sup></a> So they too are -born once more. Herakleitos estimated the duration -of the cycle which preserves the balance of life and -death as thirty years, the shortest time in which a man -may become a grandfather (frs. 87-89).<a id='r393' /><a href='#f393' class='c014'><sup>[393]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The day and the year.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec76'></a>76. Let us turn now to the world. Diogenes tells -us that fire was kept up by the bright vapours from land -and sea, and moisture by the dark.<a id='r394' /><a href='#f394' class='c014'><sup>[394]</sup></a> What are these -“dark” vapours which increase the moist element? If -we remember the “Air” of Anaximenes, we shall be -inclined to regard them as darkness itself. We know -that the idea of darkness as privation of light is not -natural to the unsophisticated mind. We sometimes -hear even now of darkness “thick enough to cut with -a knife.” I suppose, then, that Herakleitos believed -<span class='pageno' id='Page_174'>174</span>night and winter to be produced by the rise of darkness -from earth and sea—he saw, of course, that the -valleys were dark before the hill-tops,—and that this -darkness, being moist, so increased the watery element -as to put out the sun’s light. This, however, destroys -the power of darkness itself. It can no longer rise -upwards unless the sun gives it motion, and so it -becomes possible for a fresh sun (fr. <a href='#He.32'>32</a>) to be kindled, -and to nourish itself at the expense of the moist -element for a time. But it can only be for a time. -The sun, by burning up the bright vapour, deprives -himself of nourishment, and the dark vapour once more -gets the upper hand. It is in this sense that “day and -night are one” (fr. <a href='#He.35'>35</a>). Each implies the other, and -they are therefore to be regarded as merely two sides -of the one, in which alone their true ground of explanation -is to be found (fr. <a href='#He.36'>36</a>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Summer and winter were easily to be explained in -the same way. We know that the “turnings” of the -sun were a subject of interest in those days, and it was -natural for Herakleitos to see in its retreat further to -the south the gradual advance of the moist element, -caused by the heat of the sun itself. This, however, -diminishes the power of the sun to cause evaporation, -and so it must return to the north once more that it -may supply itself with nourishment. Such was, at any -rate, the Stoic doctrine on the subject,<a id='r395' /><a href='#f395' class='c014'><sup>[395]</sup></a> and that it -comes from Herakleitos seems to be proved by its -<span class='pageno' id='Page_175'>175</span>occurrence in the Περὶ διαίτης. It seems impossible to -refer the following sentence to any other source:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>And in turn each (fire and water) prevails and is prevailed -over to the greatest and least degree that is possible. For -neither can prevail altogether for the following reasons. If fire -advances towards the utmost limit of the water, its nourishment -fails it. It retires, then, to a place where it can get -nourishment. And if water advances towards the utmost limit -of the fire, movement fails it. At that point, then, it stands -still; and, when it has come to a stand, it has no longer power -to resist, but is consumed as nourishment for the fire that falls -upon it. For these reasons neither can prevail altogether. -But if at any time either should be in any way overcome, -then none of the things that exist would be as they are now. -So long as things are as they are, fire and water will always be -too, and neither will ever fail.<a id='r396' /><a href='#f396' class='c014'><sup>[396]</sup></a></p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Great Year.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec77'></a>77. Herakleitos spoke also of a longer period, which -is identified with the “Great Year,” and is variously -described as lasting 18,000 and 10,800 years.<a id='r397' /><a href='#f397' class='c014'><sup>[397]</sup></a> We -have no definite statement, however, of what process -Herakleitos supposed to take place in the Great Year. -We have seen that the period of 36,000 years was, in -all probability, Babylonian, and was that of the revolution -which produces the precession of the equinoxes.<a id='r398' /><a href='#f398' class='c014'><sup>[398]</sup></a> -<span class='pageno' id='Page_176'>176</span>Now 18,000 years is just half that period, a fact which -may be connected with Herakleitos’s way of dividing -all cycles into an “upward and downward path” It is -not at all likely, however, that Herakleitos, who held -with Xenophanes that the sun was “new every day,” -would trouble himself about the precession of the -equinoxes, and we seem forced to assume that he -gave some new application to the traditional period. -The Stoics, or some of them, held that the Great Year -was the period between one world-conflagration and -the next. They were careful, however, to make it a -good deal longer than Herakleitos did, and, in any -case, we are not entitled without more ado to credit -him with the theory of a general conflagration.<a id='r399' /><a href='#f399' class='c014'><sup>[399]</sup></a> We -must try first, if possible, to interpret the Great Year -on the analogy of the shorter periods discussed -already.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Now we have seen that a generation is the shortest -time in which a man can become a grandfather, it is -the period of the upward or downward path of the soul, -and the most natural interpretation of the longer period -would surely be that it represents the time taken by a -“measure” of the fire in the world to travel on the -downward path to earth or return to fire once more by -the upward path. Plato certainly implies that such a -parallelism between the periods of man and the world -<span class='pageno' id='Page_177'>177</span>was recognised,<a id='r400' /><a href='#f400' class='c014'><sup>[400]</sup></a> and this receives a curious confirmation -from a passage in Aristotle, which is usually supposed -to refer to the doctrine of a periodic conflagration. He -is discussing the question whether the “heavens,” that -is to say, what he calls the “first heaven,” is eternal or -not, and he naturally enough, from his own point of -view, identifies this with the Fire of Herakleitos. He -quotes him along with Empedokles as holding that the -“heavens” are alternately as they are now and in some -other state, one of passing away; and he goes on to -point out that this is not really to say they pass away, -any more than it would be to say that a man ceases to -be, if we said that he turned from boy to man and then -from man to boy again.<a id='r401' /><a href='#f401' class='c014'><sup>[401]</sup></a> It is surely clear that this is -a reference to the parallel between the generation and -the Great Year, and, if so, the ordinary interpretation of -the passage must be wrong. It is true that it is not -quite consistent with the theory to suppose that a -“measure” of Fire could preserve its identity throughout -the whole of its upward and downward path; but -it is exactly the same inconsistency that we have felt -bound to recognise with regard to the continuance -of individual souls, a fact which is really in favour -of our interpretation. It should be added that, while -18,000 is half 36,000, 10,800 is 360 × 30, which -<span class='pageno' id='Page_178'>178</span>would make each generation a day in the Great -Year.<a id='r402' /><a href='#f402' class='c014'><sup>[402]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Did Herakleitos teach a general conflagration?</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec78'></a>78. Most modern writers, however, ascribe to -Herakleitos the doctrine of a periodical conflagration or -ἐκπύρωσις, to use the Stoic term.<a id='r403' /><a href='#f403' class='c014'><sup>[403]</sup></a> That this is inconsistent -with the theory, as we have interpreted it, is -obvious, and is indeed admitted by Zeller. To his -paraphrase of the statement of Plato quoted above -(p. 159) he adds the words: “Herakleitos did not intend -to retract this principle in the doctrine of a periodic -change in the constitution of the world; if the two -doctrines are not compatible, it is a contradiction which -he has not observed.” Now, it is in itself quite likely -that there were contradictions in the discourse of -Herakleitos, but it is very unlikely that there was this -particular one. In the first place, it is a contradiction -of the central idea of his system, the thought that possessed -his whole mind (<a href='#sec67'>§ 67</a>), and we can only admit -the possibility of that, if the evidence for it should -prove irresistible. In the second place, such an interpretation -destroys the whole point of Plato’s contrast -between Herakleitos and Empedokles (<a href='#sec68'>§ 68</a>), which is -just that, while Herakleitos said the One was always -many, and the Many always one, Empedokles said the -All was many and one by turns. Zeller’s interpretation -obliges us, then, to suppose that Herakleitos flatly contradicted -his own discovery without noticing it, and -that Plato, in discussing this very discovery, was also -blind to the contradiction.<a id='r404' /><a href='#f404' class='c014'><sup>[404]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_179'>179</span>Nor is there anything in Aristotle to set against -Plato’s emphatic statement. We have seen that the -passage in which he speaks of him along with -Empedokles as holding that the heavens were -alternately in one condition and in another refers not -to the world in general, but to fire, which Aristotle -identified with the substance of his own “first heaven.”<a id='r405' /><a href='#f405' class='c014'><sup>[405]</sup></a> -It is also quite consistent with our interpretation when -he says that all things at one time or another become -fire. This does not necessarily mean that they all -become fire at the same time, but is merely a statement -of the undoubted Herakleitean doctrine of the upward -and downward path.<a id='r406' /><a href='#f406' class='c014'><sup>[406]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The only clear statements to the effect that -Herakleitos taught the doctrine of a general conflagration -are posterior to the rise of Stoicism. It is -unnecessary to enumerate them, as there is no doubt -about their meaning. The Christian apologists too -were interested in the idea of a final conflagration, and -reproduce the Stoic view. The curious thing, however, -is that there was a difference of opinion on the subject -<span class='pageno' id='Page_180'>180</span>even among the Stoics. In one place, Marcus Aurelius -says: “So that all these things are taken up into -the Reason of the universe, whether by a periodical -conflagration or a renovation effected by external -exchanges.”<a id='r407' /><a href='#f407' class='c014'><sup>[407]</sup></a> Indeed, there were some who said there -was no general conflagration at all in Herakleitos. “I -hear all that,” Plutarch makes one of his personages -say, “from many people, and I see the Stoic conflagration -spreading over the poems of Hesiod, just as it -does over the writings of Herakleitos and the verses of -Orpheus.”<a id='r408' /><a href='#f408' class='c014'><sup>[408]</sup></a> We see from this that the question was -debated, and we should therefore expect that any statement -of Herakleitos which could settle it would be -quoted over and over again. It is highly significant -that not a single quotation of the kind can be produced.</p> - -<p class='c002'>On the contrary, the absence of anything to show -that Herakleitos spoke of a general conflagration only -becomes more patent when we turn to the few fragments -which are supposed to prove it. The favourite is fr. <a href='#He.24'>24</a>, -where we are told that Herakleitos said Fire was Want -and Surfeit. That is just in his manner, and it has a -perfectly intelligible meaning on our interpretation, -which is further confirmed by fr. <a href='#He.36'>36</a>. On the other -hand, it seems distinctly artificial to understand the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_181'>181</span>Surfeit as referring to the fact that fire has burnt everything -else up, and still more so to interpret Want as -meaning that fire, or most of it, has turned into a -world. The next is fr. <a href='#He.26'>26</a>, where we read that fire in -its advance will judge and convict all things. There -is nothing in this, however, to suggest that fire will -judge all things at once rather than in turn, and, -indeed, the phraseology reminds us of the advance of -fire and water which we have seen reason for attributing -to Herakleitos, but which is expressly said to be -limited to a certain maximum.<a id='r409' /><a href='#f409' class='c014'><sup>[409]</sup></a> These appear to be -the only passages which the Stoics and the Christian -apologists could discover, and, whether our interpretation -of them is right or wrong, it is surely obvious that -they cannot bear the weight of their conclusion, and -that there was certainly nothing more definite to be -found.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is much easier to find fragments which are on -the face of them inconsistent with a general conflagration. -The “measures” of fr. <a href='#He.20'>20</a> and fr. <a href='#He.29'>29</a> must be -the same thing, and they must surely be interpreted -in the light of fr. <a href='#He.23'>23</a>. If this be so, fr. <a href='#He.20'>20</a>, and more -especially fr. <a href='#He.29'>29</a>, directly contradict the idea of a -general conflagration. “The sun will not overstep his -measures.”<a id='r410' /><a href='#f410' class='c014'><sup>[410]</sup></a> Secondly, the metaphor of “exchange,” -which is applied to the transformations of fire in fr. <a href='#He.22'>22</a>, -points in the same direction. When gold is given in -exchange for wares and wares for gold, the sum or -“measure” of each remains constant, though they -change owners. All the wares and gold do not come -<span class='pageno' id='Page_182'>182</span>into the same hands. In the same way, when anything -becomes fire, something of equal amount must cease to -be fire, if the “exchange” is to be a just one; and -that it will be just, we are assured by the watchfulness -of the Erinyes (fr. <a href='#He.29'>29</a>), who see to it that the sun does -not take more than he gives. Of course there is, as we -have seen, a certain variation; but this is strictly confined -within limits, and is compensated in the long run -by a variation in the other direction. Thirdly, fr. <a href='#He.43'>43</a>, -in which Herakleitos blames Homer for desiring the -cessation of strife, is very conclusive. The cessation of -strife would mean that all things should take the -upward or downward path at the same time, and cease -to “run in opposite directions.” If they all took the -upward path, we should have a general conflagration. -Now, if Herakleitos had himself held that this was the -appointment of fate, would he have been likely to -upbraid Homer for desiring so necessary a consummation?<a id='r411' /><a href='#f411' class='c014'><sup>[411]</sup></a> -Fourthly, we note that in fr. <a href='#He.20'>20</a> it is <em>this</em> world,<a id='r412' /><a href='#f412' class='c014'><sup>[412]</sup></a> -and not merely the “ever-living fire,” which is said to -be eternal; and it appears also that its eternity -depends upon the fact that it is always kindling and -always going out in the same “measures,” or that -an encroachment in one direction is compensated by -a subsequent encroachment in the other. Lastly, -Lassalle’s argument from the concluding sentence of -the passage from the Περὶ διαίτης, quoted above, is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_183'>183</span>really untouched by Zeller’s objection, that it cannot -be Herakleitean because it implies that all things are -fire and water. It does not imply this, but only that -<em>man</em>, like the heavenly bodies, oscillates between fire -and water; and that is just what Herakleitos taught. -It does not appear either that the measures of earth -varied at all. Now, in this passage we read that -neither fire nor water can prevail completely, and a -very good reason is given for this, a reason too which -is in striking agreement with the other views of -Herakleitos.<a id='r413' /><a href='#f413' class='c014'><sup>[413]</sup></a> And, indeed, it is not easy to see how, -in accordance with these views, the world could ever -recover from a general conflagration if such a thing -were to take place. The whole process depends, so -far as we can see, on the fact that Surfeit is also Want, -or, in other words, that an advance of fire increases the -moist exhalation, while an advance of water deprives -the fire of the power to cause evaporation. The conflagration, -though it lasted but for a moment,<a id='r414' /><a href='#f414' class='c014'><sup>[414]</sup></a> would -destroy the opposite tension on which the rise of a -new world depends, and then motion would become -impossible.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Strife and “harmony.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_184'>184</span><a id='sec79'></a>79. We are now in a position to understand more -clearly the law of strife or opposition which manifests -itself in the “upward and downward path.” At any -given moment, each of the three forms of matter, Fire, -Water, and Earth, is made up of two equal portions,—subject, -of course, to the oscillation described above,—one -of which is taking the upward and the other the -downward path. Now, it is just the fact that the -two halves of everything are being “drawn in opposite -directions,” this “opposite tension,” that “keeps things -together,” and maintains them in an equilibrium which -can only be disturbed temporarily and within certain -limits. It thus forms the “hidden attunement” of the -universe (fr. <a href='#He.47'>47</a>), though, in another aspect of it, it is -Strife. Bernays has pointed out that the word ἁρμονία -meant originally “structure,” and the illustration of the -bow and the lyre shows that this idea was present. -On the other hand, that taken from the concord of -high and low notes shows that the musical sense of the -word, namely, an octave, was not wholly absent. As -to the “bow and the lyre” (fr. <a href='#He.45'>45</a>), I think that Professor -Campbell has best brought out the point of the simile. -“As the arrow leaves the string,” he says, “the hands -are pulling opposite ways to each other, and to the -different parts of the bow (cf. Plato, <cite>Rep.</cite> 4. 439); and -the sweet note of the lyre is due to a similar tension -and retention. The secret of the universe is the same.”<a id='r415' /><a href='#f415' class='c014'><sup>[415]</sup></a> -War, then, is the father and king of all things, in the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_185'>185</span>world as in human society (fr. <a href='#He.44'>44</a>); and Homer’s wish -that strife might cease was really a prayer for the -destruction of the world (fr. <a href='#He.43'>43</a>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>We know from Philo that Herakleitos supported -his theory of the attainment of harmony through strife -by a multitude of examples; and, as it happens, some -of these can be recovered. There is a remarkable -agreement between a passage of this kind in the pseudo-Aristotelian -treatise, entitled <cite>The Kosmos</cite>, and the -Hippokratean work to which we have already referred. -That the authors of both drew from the same source, -namely, Herakleitos, is probable in itself, and is made -practically certain by the fact that this agreement -extends in part to the <cite>Letters of Herakleitos</cite>, which, -though spurious, were certainly composed by some one -who had access to the original work. The argument -was that men themselves act just in the same way as -Nature, and it is therefore surprising that they do not -recognise the laws by which she works. The painter -produces his harmonious effects by the contrast of -colours, the musician by that of high and low notes. -“If one were to make all things alike, there would -be no delight in them.” There are many similar -examples in the Hippokratean tract, some of which -must certainly come from Herakleitos; but it is not -easy to separate them from the later additions.<a id='r416' /><a href='#f416' class='c014'><sup>[416]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Correlation of opposites.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_186'>186</span><a id='sec80'></a>80. There are a number of Herakleitean fragments -which form a class by themselves, and are among the -most striking of all the utterances that have come -down to us. Their common characteristic is, that -they assert in the most downright way the identity of -various things which are usually regarded as opposites. -The clue to their meaning is to be found in the account -already given of the assertion that day and night are -one. We have seen that Herakleitos meant to say, -not that day was night or that night was day, but -that they were two sides of the same process, namely, -the oscillation of the “measures” of fire and water, -and that neither would be possible without the other. -Any explanation that can be given of night will also be -an explanation of day, and <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>vice versa</i></span>; for it will be -an account of that which is common to both, and -manifests itself now as one and now as the other. -Moreover, it is just because it has manifested itself in -the one form that it must next appear in the other; -for this is required by the law of compensation or -Justice.</p> - -<p class='c002'>This is only a particular application of the universal -principle that the primary fire is one even in its -division. It itself is, even in its unity, both surfeit -and want, war and peace (fr. <a href='#He.36'>36</a>). In other words, the -“satiety” which makes fire pass into other forms, which -makes it seek “rest in change” (frs. <a href='#He.82'>82</a>, <a href='#He.83'>83</a>), and “hide -itself” (fr. <a href='#He.10'>10</a>) in the “hidden attunement” of opposition, -is only one side of the process. The other is the -“want” which leads it to consume the bright vapour as -fuel. The upward path is nothing without the downward -<span class='pageno' id='Page_187'>187</span>(fr. <a href='#He.69'>69</a>). If either were to cease, the other would -cease too, and the world would disappear; for it takes -both to make an apparently stable reality.</p> - -<p class='c002'>All other utterances of the kind are to be explained -in the same way. If there were no cold, there would -be no heat; for a thing can only grow warm if, and in -so far as, it is already cold. And the same thing applies -to the opposition of wet and dry (fr. <a href='#He.39'>39</a>). These, it -will be observed, are just the two primary oppositions -of Anaximander, and Herakleitos is showing that the -war between them is really peace, for it is the common -element in them (fr. <a href='#He.62'>62</a>) which appears as strife, and -that very strife is justice, and not, as Anaximander had -taught, an injustice which they commit one against the -other, and which must be expiated by a reabsorption of -both in their common ground.<a id='r417' /><a href='#f417' class='c014'><sup>[417]</sup></a> The strife itself is the -common ground (fr. <a href='#He.62'>62</a>), and is eternal.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The most startling of these sayings is that which -affirms that good and evil are the same (fr. <a href='#He.57'>57</a>). This -does not mean in the least, however, that good is evil -or that evil is good, but simply that they are the two -inseparable halves of one and the same thing. A -thing can become good only in so far as it is already -evil, and evil only in so far as it is already good, and -everything depends on the contrast. The illustration -given in fr. <a href='#He.58'>58</a> shows this clearly. Torture, one would -say, was an evil, and yet it is made a good by the -presence of another evil, namely, disease; as is shown -by the fact that surgeons expect a fee for inflicting -it upon their patients. Justice, on the other hand, -which is a good, would be altogether unknown were -it not for the existence of injustice, which is an evil -<span class='pageno' id='Page_188'>188</span>(fr. <a href='#He.60'>60</a>). And that is why it is not good for men to -get everything they wish (fr. <a href='#He.104'>104</a>). Just as the cessation -of strife in the world would mean its destruction, -so the disappearance of hunger, disease, and weariness -would mean the disappearance of satisfaction, health, -and rest.</p> - -<p class='c002'>This leads to a theory of relativity which prepares -the way for the doctrine of Protagoras, that “Man is -the measure of all things.”<a id='r418' /><a href='#f418' class='c014'><sup>[418]</sup></a> Sea-water is good for fish -and bad for men (fr. <a href='#He.52'>52</a>), and so with many other -things. At the same time, Herakleitos is not a believer -in absolute relativity. The process of the world is not -merely a circle, but an “upward and downward path.” -At the upper end, where the two paths meet, we have -the pure fire, in which, as there is no separation, there -is no relativity. We are told expressly that, while -to man some things are evil and some things are good, -all things are good to God (fr. <a href='#He.61'>61</a>). Now by God there -is no doubt that Herakleitos meant Fire. He also -calls it the “one wise,” and perhaps said that it -“knows all things.” There can hardly be any question -that what he meant to say was that in it the opposition -and relativity which are universal in the world -disappear. It is doubtless to this that frs. <a href='#He.96'>96</a>, <a href='#He.97'>97</a>, and -<a href='#He.98'>98</a> refer.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Wise.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec81'></a>81. Herakleitos speaks of “wisdom” or the “wise” -in two senses. We have seen already that he said -wisdom was “something apart from everything else” -<span class='pageno' id='Page_189'>189</span>(fr. <a href='#He.18'>18</a>), meaning by it the perception of the unity of the -many; and he also applies the term to that unity itself -regarded as the “thought that directs the course of all -things.” This is synonymous with the pure fire which -is not differentiated into two parts, one taking the -upward and the other the downward path. That alone -has wisdom; the partial things we see have not. We -ourselves are only wise in so far as we are fiery (fr. <a href='#He.74'>74</a>).</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Theology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec82'></a>82. With certain reservations, Herakleitos was prepared -to call the one Wisdom by the name of Zeus. -Such, at least, appears to be the meaning of fr. <a href='#He.65'>65</a>. -What these reservations were, it is easy to guess. It is -not, of course, to be pictured in the form of a man. In -saying this, Herakleitos would only have been repeating -what had already been laid down by Anaximander and -Xenophanes. He agrees further with Xenophanes in -holding that this “god,” if it is to be called so, is one; -but his polemic against popular religion was directed -rather against the rites and ceremonies themselves -than their mere mythological outgrowth. He gives a -list (fr. <a href='#He.124'>124</a>) of some of the most characteristic -religious figures of his time, and the context in -which the fragment is quoted shows that he in some -way threatened them with the wrath to come. He -comments upon the absurdity of praying to images -(fr. <a href='#He.126'>126</a>), and the strange idea that blood-guiltiness can -be washed out by the shedding of blood (fr. <a href='#He.130'>130</a>). He -seems also to have said that it was absurd to celebrate -the worship of Dionysos by cheerful and licentious -ceremonies, while Hades was propitiated by gloomy rites -(fr. <a href='#He.127'>127</a>). According to the mystic doctrine itself, the -two were really one; and the one Wisdom ought to be -worshipped in its integrity.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_190'>190</span>The few fragments which deal with theology and -religion hardly suggest to us that Herakleitos was in -sympathy with the religious revival of the time, and yet -we have been asked to consider his system “in the -light of the idea of the mysteries.”<a id='r419' /><a href='#f419' class='c014'><sup>[419]</sup></a> Our attention -is called to the fact that he was “king” of Ephesos, -that is, priest of the branch of the Eleusinian mysteries -established in that city, which was also connected in -some way with the worship of Artemis or the Great -Mother.<a id='r420' /><a href='#f420' class='c014'><sup>[420]</sup></a> These statements may be true; but, even if -they are, what follows? We ought surely to have -learnt from Lobeck by this time that there was no -“idea” in the mysteries at all; and on this point -the results of recent anthropological research have -abundantly confirmed those of philological and -historical inquiry.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Ethics of Herakleitos.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec83'></a>83. The moral teaching of Herakleitos has sometimes -been regarded as an anticipation of the “common-sense” -theory of Ethics.<a id='r421' /><a href='#f421' class='c014'><sup>[421]</sup></a> The “common” upon which -Herakleitos insists is, nevertheless, something very -different from common sense, for which, indeed, he -had the greatest possible contempt (fr. 111). It is, -in fact, his strongest objection to “the many,” that -they live each in his own world (fr. <a href='#He.95'>95</a>), as if they -had a private wisdom of their own (fr. <a href='#He.92'>92</a>); and public -opinion is therefore just the opposite of “the common.”</p> - -<p class='c002'>The Ethics of Herakleitos are to be regarded as -a corollary of his anthropological and cosmological -views. Their chief requirement is that we keep our -<span class='pageno' id='Page_191'>191</span>souls dry, and thus assimilate them to the one Wisdom, -which is fire. That is what is really “common,” and -the greatest fault is to act like men asleep (fr. <a href='#He.94'>94</a>), -that is, by letting our souls grow moist, to cut ourselves -off from the fire in the world. We do not -know what were the consequences which Herakleitos -deduced from his rule that we must hold fast to -what is common, but it is easy to see what their -nature must have been. The wise man would not try -to secure good without its correlative evil. He would -not seek for rest without exertion, nor expect to enjoy -contentment without first suffering discontent. He -would not complain that he had to take the bad with -the good, but would consistently look at things as a -whole.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Herakleitos prepared the way for the Stoic world-state -by comparing “the common” to the laws of a -city. And these are even more than a type of the -divine law: they are imperfect embodiments of it. -They cannot, however, exhaust it altogether; for in -all human affairs there is an element of relativity -(fr. <a href='#He.91a'>91</a>). “Man is a baby compared to God” (fr. <a href='#He.97'>97</a>). -Such as they are, however, the city must fight for -them as for its walls; and, if it has the good fortune -to possess a citizen with a dry soul, he is worth ten -thousand (fr. <a href='#He.113'>113</a>); for in him alone is “the common” -embodied.</p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f319'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r319'>319</a>. Diog. ix. 1 (R. P. 29), no doubt from Apollodoros through some intermediate -authority. Jacoby, pp. 227 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f320'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r320'>320</a>. Bernays, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Die Heraklitischen Briefe</cite></span>, pp. 13 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f321'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r321'>321</a>. Bernays, <i>op. cit.</i> pp. 20 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f322'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r322'>322</a>. Sotion <i>ap.</i> Diog. ix. 5 (R. P. 29 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f323'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r323'>323</a>. Diog. ix. 6 (R. P. 31).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f324'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r324'>324</a>. See Patin, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Heraklits Einheitslehre</cite></span>, pp. 3 sqq. Herakleitos said (fr. -68) that it was death to souls to become water; and we are told accordingly -that he died of dropsy. He said (fr. 114) that the Ephesians should -leave their city to their children, and (fr. 79) that Time was a child playing -draughts. We are therefore told that he refused to take any part in -public life, and went to play with the children in the temple of Artemis. -He said (fr. 85) that corpses were more fit to be cast out than dung; and -we are told that he covered himself with dung when attacked with dropsy. -Lastly, he is said to have argued at great length with his doctors because -of fr. 58. For these tales see Diog. ix. 3-5, and compare the stories about -Empedokles discussed in Chap. V. <a href='#sec100'>§ 100</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f325'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r325'>325</a>. The variety of titles enumerated in Diog. ix. 12 (R. P. 30 b) seems to -show that none was authentically known. That of “Muses” comes from -Plato, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Soph.</cite></span> 242 d 7. The others are mere “mottoes” (Schuster) prefixed -by Stoic editors, and intended to emphasise their view that the subject of -the work was ethical or political (Diog. ix. 15; R. P. 30 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f326'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r326'>326</a>. Diog. ix. 5 (R. P. 30). Bywater has followed this hint in his arrangement -of the fragments. The three sections are 1-90, 91-97, 98-130.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f327'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r327'>327</a>. R. P. 30 a. The epithet ὁ σκοτεινός is of late date, but Timon of Phleious -already called him αἰνικτής (fr. 43, Diels).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f328'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r328'>328</a>. See the valuable observations of Diels in the Introduction to his -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Herakleitos von Ephesos</cite></span>, pp. iv. sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f329'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r329'>329</a>. Cf. Diog. ix. 6 (R. P. 31).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f330'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r330'>330</a>. In his edition, Diels has given up all attempt to arrange the fragments -according to subject, and this makes his text unsuitable for our purpose. -I think, too, that he overestimates the difficulty of an approximate arrangement, -and makes too much of the view that the style of Herakleitos was -“aphoristic.” That it was so, is an important and valuable remark; but -it does not follow that Herakleitos wrote like Nietzsche. For a Greek, -however prophetic in his tone, there must always be a distinction between -an aphoristic and an incoherent style. See the excellent remarks of Lortzing -in <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Berl. Phil. Wochenschr.</cite></span> 1896, pp. 1 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f331'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r331'>331</a>. Both Bywater and Diels accept Bergk’s λόγου for δόγματος and Miller’s -εἶναι for εἰδέναι. Cf. Philo, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>leg. all.</cite></span> iii. c, quoted in Bywater’s note.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f332'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r332'>332</a>. The λόγος is simply the discourse of Herakleitos himself; though, as -he is a prophet, we may call it “the Word.” It can neither mean a -discourse addressed to Herakleitos nor yet “reason.” (Cf. Zeller, p. 630, -n. 1; Eng. trans. ii. p. 7, n. 2.) A difficulty has been raised about the words -ἐόντας αἰεί. How could Herakleitos say that his discourse had always -existed? The answer is that in Ionic ἐών means “true” when coupled -with words like λόγος. Cf. Herod. i. 30, τῷ ἐόντι χρησάμενος λέγει; and -even Aristoph. <cite>Frogs</cite>, 1052, οὐκ ὄντα λόγον. It is only by taking the words -in this way that we can understand Aristotle’s hesitation as to the proper -punctuation of the fragment (<cite>Rhet.</cite> Γ 5. 1407 b 15; R. P. 30 a). The Stoic -interpretation given by Marcus Aurelius, iv. 46 (R. P. 32 b), must be -rejected altogether. The word λόγος was never used like that till post-Aristotelian -times.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f333'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r333'>333</a>. I have departed from the punctuation of Bywater here, and supplied a -fresh object to the verb as suggested by Gomperz (<cite>Arch.</cite> i. 100).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f334'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r334'>334</a>. Cf. Herod, i. 8. The application is, no doubt, the same as that of -the last two fragments. Personal inquiry is better than tradition.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f335'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r335'>335</a>. See Chap. II. p. 107, <a href='#f224'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 224</ins></a>. The best attested reading is ἐποιήσατο, -not ἐποίησεν, and ἐποιήσατο ἑαυτοῦ means “claimed as his own.” The words -ἐκλεξάμενος ταύτας τὰς συγγραφάς have been doubted since the time of -Schleiermacher, and Diels has now come to regard the whole fragment as -spurious. This is because it was used to prove that Pythagoras wrote -books (cf. Diels, <cite>Arch.</cite> iii. p. 451). As Mr. Bywater has pointed out, -however, the fragment itself makes no such statement; it only says that -he read books, which we may presume he did. I would further suggest -that the old-fashioned συγγραφάς is rather too good for a forger, and that -the omission of the very thing to be proved is remarkable. The last -suggestion of a book by Pythagoras disappears with the reading ἐποιήσατο -for ἐποίησεν. Of course a late writer who read of Pythagoras making -extracts from books would assume that he put them into a book of his own, -just as people did in his own days. For the rest, I understand ἱστορίη of -science, which is contrasted with the κακοτεχνίη which Pythagoras derived -from the συγγραφαί of men like Pherekydes of Syros.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f336'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r336'>336</a>. The word κόσμος must mean “world” here, not merely “order;” for -only the world could be identified with fire. This use of the word is -Pythagorean, and there is no reason to doubt that Herakleitos may have -known it.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f337'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r337'>337</a>. It is important to notice that μέτρα is internal accusative with ἁπτόμενον, -“with its measures kindling and its measures going out.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f338'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r338'>338</a>. On the word πρηστήρ, see below, p. 165, <a href='#f380'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 380</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f339'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r339'>339</a>. The subject of fr. 23 is γῆ, as we see from Diog. ix. 9 (R. P. 36), -πάλιν τε αὖ τὴν γὴν χεῖσθαι; and Aet. i. 3, 11 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 284 a 1; b 5), -ἔπειτα ἀναχαλωμένην τὴν γῆν ὑπὸ τοῦ τυρὸς χύσει (Dübner: φύσει, libri) -ὕδωρ ἀποτελεῖσθαι. Herakleitos might quite well say γῆ θάλασσα διαχέεται, -and the context in Clement (<cite>Strom.</cite> v. p. 712) seems to imply this. The -phrase μετρέεται εἰς τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον can only mean that the proportion of -the measures remains constant. So practically Zeller (p. 690, n. 1), <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>zu -derselben Grösse</i></span>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f340'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r340'>340</a>. With Diels I adopt the transposition (proposed by Tocco) of ἀέρος and -γῆς.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f341'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r341'>341</a>. I understand ἐπελθόν of the πυρὸς ἔφοδος, for which see below, p. 168. -Diels has pointed out that καταλαμβάνειν is the old word for “to convict.” -It is, literally, “to overtake,” just as αἱρεῖν is “to catch.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f342'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r342'>342</a>. In this fragment it is clear that οὖρος = τέρματα, and therefore means -“boundary,” not “hill.” As αἴθριος Ζεύς means the bright blue sky, I do -not think its οὖρος can be the South Pole, as Diels says. It is more likely -the horizon. I am inclined to take the fragment as a protest against the -Pythagorean theory of a southern hemisphere.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f343'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r343'>343</a>. We learn from Diog. ix. 10 (quoted below, p. <a href='#Page_164'>164</a>) that Herakleitos -explained why the sun was warmer and brighter than the moon, and this -is doubtless a fragment of that passage. I now think the words ἕνεκα τῶν -ἄλλων ἄστρων are from Herakleitos. So Diels.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f344'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r344'>344</a>. Hesiod said Day was the child of Night (<cite>Theog.</cite> 124).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f345'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r345'>345</a>. Reading ὅκωσπερ πῦρ for ὅκωσπερ with Diels.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f346'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r346'>346</a>. <cite>Il.</cite> xviii. 107. I add the words οἰχήσεσθαι γὰρ πάντα from Simpl. <cite>in -Cat.</cite> (88 b 30 schol. Br.). They seem to me at least to represent something -that was in the original.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f347'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r347'>347</a>. I cannot think it likely that Herakleitos said both παλίντονος and -παλίντροπος ἁρμονίη, and I prefer Plutarch’s παλίντονος (R. P. 34 b) to the -παλίντροπος of Hippolytos. Diels thinks that the polemic of Parmenides -decides the question in favour of παλίντροπος; but see below, p. 184, <a href='#f415'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 415</ins></a>, -and Chap. IV. p. 198, <a href='#f438'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 438</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f348'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r348'>348</a>. This, I now think, is the medical rule αἱ ἰατρεῖαι διὰ τῶν ἐναντίων, -<i>e.g.</i> βοηθεῖν τῷ θερμῷ ἐπὶ τὸ ψυχρόν (Stewart on Arist. <cite>Eth.</cite> 1104 -b 16).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f349'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r349'>349</a>. Fr. 51<i>a</i> was recovered by Bywater from Albertus Magnus. See -<cite>Journ. Phil.</cite> ix. p. 230.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f350'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r350'>350</a>. On fr. 55 see Diels in <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Berl. Sitzb.</cite></span> 1901, p. 188.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f351'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r351'>351</a>. I now read ἐπαιτέονται with Bernays and Diels.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f352'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r352'>352</a>. On fr. 59 see Diels in <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Berl. Sitzb.</cite></span> 1901, p. 188. The reading συνάψιες -seems to be well attested and gives an excellent sense. It is not, however, -correct to say that the optative could not be used in an imperative sense.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f353'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r353'>353</a>. By “these things,” he probably meant all kinds of injustice.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f354'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r354'>354</a>. Diels supposes that fr. 64 went on ὁκόσα δὲ τεθνηκότες ζωή. “Life, -Sleep, Death is the threefold ladder in psychology, as in physics Fire, -Water, Earth.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f355'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r355'>355</a>. I think now with Diels that the words οὕτω βαθὺν λόγον ἔχει are -probably genuine. They present no difficulty if we remember that λόγος -means “measurement,” as in fr. <a href='#He.23'>23</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f356'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r356'>356</a>. This fragment is interesting because of the great antiquity of the -corruptions which it has suffered. According to Stephanus, who is followed -by Bywater and Diels, we should read: Αὔη ψυχὴ σοφωτάτη καὶ ἀρίστη, -ξηρή (or rather ξηρά—the Ionic form would only appear when the word got -into the text) being a mere gloss upon the somewhat unusual αὔη. When -once ξηρή got into the text, αὔη became αὐγή, and we get the sentence: -“the dry light is the wisest soul,” whence the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>siccum lumen</i></span> of Bacon. -Now this reading is certainly as old as Plutarch, who, in his Life of Romulus -(c. 28), takes αὐγή to mean lightning, as it sometimes does, and supposes -the idea to be that the wise soul bursts through the prison of the body like -dry lightning (whatever that may be) through a cloud. I do not think that -Clement’s making the same mistake proves anything at all (Zeller, p. 705, -n. 3; Eng. trans. i. p. 80, n. 2), except that he had read his Plutarch. -Lastly, it is worth noticing that, though Plutarch must have written αὐγή, -the MSS. vary between αὕτη and αὐτή. The next stage is the corruption -of the corrupt αὐγή into οὗ γῆ. This yields the sentiment that “where the -earth is dry, the soul is wisest,” and is as old as Philo (see Mr. Bywater’s -notes).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f357'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r357'>357</a>. I understand μεταπεσόντα here as meaning “moved” from one γραμμή -or division of the draught-board to another.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f358'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r358'>358</a>. Sext. <cite>Math.</cite> vii. 133, διὸ δεῖ ἕπεσθαι τῷ ξυνῷ. It seems to me that -these words must belong to Herakleitos, though Bywater omits them. On -the other hand, the words τοῦ λόγου δὲ ὄντος ξυνοῦ (so, not δ’ ἐόντος, the -best MSS.) seem clearly to belong to the Stoic interpreter whom Sextus is -following, and who was anxious to connect this fragment with fr. <a href='#He.2'>2</a> (ὀλίγα -προσδιελθὼν ἐπιφέρει) in order to get the doctrine of the κοινὸς λόγος. The -whole context in Sextus should be read.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f359'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r359'>359</a>. The words λόγῳ τῳ τὰ ὅλα διοικοῦντι, which Diels prints as part of -this fragment, seem to me to belong to Marcus Aurelius and not to -Herakleitos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f360'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r360'>360</a>. Adopting Heitz’s κακὸν for καὶ with Diels.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f361'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r361'>361</a>. The word θυμός has its Homeric sense. The gratification of desire -implies the exchange of dry soul-fire (fr. 74) for moisture (fr. 72). Aristotle -understood θυμός here as anger (<cite>Eth. Nic.</cite> Β 2, 1105 a 8).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f362'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r362'>362</a>. This seems to be a clear reference to the “three lives.” See Chap. -II. <a href='#sec45'>§ 45</a>, p. <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f363'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r363'>363</a>. Reading δοκέοντα with Schleiermacher (or δοκέοντ’ ὧν with Diels). I -have omitted φυλάσσειν, as I do not know what it means, and none of the -conjectures commends itself.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f364'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r364'>364</a>. On the meaning of δαίμων here, see my edition of Aristotle’s <cite>Ethics</cite>, -pp. 1 sq. As Professor Gildersleeve puts it, the δαίμων is the individual -form of τύχη, as κήρ is of θάνατος.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f365'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r365'>365</a>. I have not ventured to include the words ἔνθα δ’ ἐόντι at the beginning, -as the text seems to me too uncertain. See, however, Diels’s interesting -note.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f366'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r366'>366</a>. On the source used by Hippolytos in the first four chapters of <cite>Ref.</cite> i. -see Diels, <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 145. We must carefully distinguish <cite>Ref.</cite> i. and <cite>Ref.</cite> ix. -as sources of information about Herakleitos. The latter book is an -attempt to show that the Monarchian heresy of Noetos was derived from -Herakleitos instead of from the Gospel, and is a rich mine of Herakleitean -fragments.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f367'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r367'>367</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 984 a 7 (R. P. 56 c): Theophr. <i>ap.</i> Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> 23, -33 (R. P. 36 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f368'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r368'>368</a>. For these double accounts see <cite>Dox.</cite> pp. 163 sqq. and Appendix, <a href='#app1.15'>§ 15</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f369'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r369'>369</a>. Diog. ix. 15 (R. P. 30 c). Schleiermacher rightly insisted upon this.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f370'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r370'>370</a>. The word συνοικειοῦν is used of the Stoic method of interpretation by -Philodemos (cf. <cite>Dox.</cite> 547 b, n.), and Cicero (<cite>N.D.</cite> i. 41) renders it by -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>accommodare</i></span>. Chrysippos in particular gave a great impulse to this sort -of thing, as we may best learn from Galen, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Plac. Hippocr. et Plat.</cite></span> -Book iii. Good examples are Aet. i. 13, 2; 28, 1; iv. 3, 12,—where -distinctively Stoic doctrines are ascribed to Herakleitos. What the Stoics -were capable of, we see from Kleanthes, fr. 55, Pearson. He proposed to -read Ζεῦ ἀναδωδωναῖε in <cite>Il.</cite> xvi. 233, ὡς τὸν ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἀναθυμιώμενον -ἀέρα διὰ τὴν ἀνάδοσιν Ἀναδωδωναῖον ὄντα.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f371'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r371'>371</a>. See Patin, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Heraklits Einheitslehre</cite></span> (1886). To Patin undoubtedly -belongs the credit of showing clearly that the unity of opposites was the -central doctrine of Herakleitos. It is not always easy, however, to follow -him when he comes to details.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f372'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r372'>372</a>. Philo, <cite>Rer. Div. Her.</cite> 43 (R. P. 34 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f373'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r373'>373</a>. The source of his error was Hegel’s remarkable statement that there -was no proposition of Herakleitos that he had not taken up into his own -logic (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. d. Phil.</cite></span> i. 328). The example which he cites is the statement -that Being does not exist any more than not-Being, for which he -refers to Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 4. This, however, is not there ascribed to Herakleitos -at all, but to Leukippos or Demokritos, with whom it meant that space was -as real as matter (<a href='#sec175'>§ 175</a>). Aristotle does, indeed, tell us in the <cite>Metaphysics</cite> -that “some” think Herakleitos says that the same thing can be and not -be; but he adds that it does not follow that a man thinks what he says -(<cite>Met.</cite> Γ 3. 1005 b 24). I take this to mean that, though Herakleitos -did make this assertion in words, he did not mean by it what the same -assertion would naturally have meant at a later date. Herakleitos was -speaking only of nature; the logical meaning of the words never occurred -to him. This is confirmed by Κ, 5. 1062 a 31, where we are told that by -being questioned in a certain manner Herakleitos could be made to admit -the principle of contradiction; as it was, he did not understand what he -said. In other words, he was unconscious of its logical bearing.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Aristotle was aware, then, that the theories of Herakleitos were not -to be understood in a logical sense. On the other hand, this does not -prevent him from saying that according to the view of Herakleitos, everything -would be true (<cite>Met.</cite> Δ, 7. 1012 a 24). If we remember his constant -attitude to earlier thinkers, this will not lead us to suspect either his good -faith or his intelligence. (See Appendix, <a href='#app1.2'>§ 2</a>.)</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f374'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r374'>374</a>. That the Fire of Herakleitos was something on the same level as the -“Air” of Anaximenes and not a “symbol,” is clearly implied in such -passages as Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 984 a 5. In support of the view that something -different from common fire is meant, Plato, <cite>Crat.</cite> 413 b, is sometimes -quoted; but a consideration of the context shows that the passage -will not bear this interpretation. Plato is discussing the derivation of δίκαιον -from δια-ιόν, and certainly δίκη was a prominent Herakleitean conception, -and a good deal that is here said may be the authentic doctrine of the -school. Sokrates goes on to complain that when he asks what this is which -“goes through” everything, he gets very inconsistent answers. One says -it is the sun. Another asks if there is no justice after sunset, and says it is -simply fire. A third says it is not fire itself, but the heat which is in fire. -A fourth identifies it with Mind. Now all we are entitled to infer from -this is that different accounts were given in the Herakleitean school. -These were a little less crude than the original doctrine of the master, but -for all that not one of them implies anything immaterial or symbolical. -The view that it was not fire itself, but Heat, which “passed through” -all things, is related to the theory of Herakleitos as Hippo’s Moisture is -related to the Water of Thales. It is quite likely, too, that some Herakleiteans -attempted to fuse the system of Anaxagoras with their own, just -as Diogenes of Apollonia tried to fuse it with that of Anaximenes. We -shall see, indeed, that we still have a work in which this attempt is made -(p. 167, <a href='#f383'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 383</ins></a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f375'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r375'>375</a>. Plato, <cite>Tht.</cite> 152 e 1; <cite>Crat.</cite> 401 d 5, 402 a 8; Arist. <cite>Top.</cite> Α, 11. 104 -b 22; <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Γ, 1. 298 b 30; <cite>Phys.</cite> Θ, 3. 253 b 2.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f376'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r376'>376</a>. See above, Chap. I. <a href='#sec29'>§ 29</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f377'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r377'>377</a>. See, however, the remark of Diels quoted R. P. 36 c.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f378'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r378'>378</a>. Diog. ix. 8, σαφῶς δ’ οὐθὲν ἐκτίθεται.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f379'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r379'>379</a>. This was written in 1890. In his <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Herakleitos von Ephesos</cite></span> (1901) -Diels takes it as I did, rendering <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>Glutwind</i></span>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f380'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r380'>380</a>. Cf. Herod. vii. 42, and Lucretius, vi. 424. Seneca (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Quaest. Nat.</cite></span> -ii. 56) calls it <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>igneus turbo</i></span>. The opinions of early philosophers on these -phenomena are collected in Aetios, iii. 3. The πρηστήρ of Anaximander -(Chap. I. p. 69, <a href='#f133'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 133</ins></a>) is a different thing altogether, but it is quite likely that -Greek sailors named the meteorological phenomenon after the familiar -bellows of the smith.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f381'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r381'>381</a>. Aet. iii. 3, 9, πρηστῆρας δὲ κατὰ νεφῶν ἐμπρήσεις καὶ σβέσεις -(sc. Ἡράκλειτος ἀποφαίνεται γίγνεσθαι). Diels (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Herakleitos</cite></span>, p. v.) seems to -regard the πρηστήρ as the form in which water ascends to heaven. But -the Greeks were well aware that waterspouts burst and come down.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f382'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r382'>382</a>. Arist. <cite>de An.</cite> Β, 2. 405 a 26, τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν ἐξ ἧς τἆλλα συνίστησιν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f383'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r383'>383</a>. The presence of Herakleitean matter in this treatise was pointed out -by Gesner, but Bernays was the first to make any considerable use of it in -reconstructing the system. The older literature of the subject has been in -the main superseded by Carl Fredrichs’ <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Hippokratische Untersuchungen</cite></span> -(1899), where also a satisfactory text of the sections which concern us is -given for the first time. Fredrichs shows that (as I said already in the -first edition) the work belongs to the period of eclecticism and reaction -which I have briefly characterised in <a href='#sec184'>§ 184</a>, and he points out that c 3, which -was formerly supposed to be mainly Herakleitean, is really from some work -which was strongly influenced by Empedokles and Anaxagoras. I think, -however, that he goes wrong in attributing the section to a nameless -“Physiker” of the school of Archelaos, or even to Archelaos himself; it is -far more like what we should expect from the eclectic Herakleiteans whom -Plato describes in <cite>Crat.</cite> 413 c (see p. 161, <a href='#f374'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 374</ins></a>). He is certainly wrong in -holding the doctrine of the balance of fire and water not to be Herakleitean, -and there is no justification for separating the remark quoted in the text -from its context because it happens to agree almost verbally with the -beginning of c. 3. As we shall see, that passage too is of Herakleitean -origin.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f384'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r384'>384</a>. Περὶ διαίτης, i. 5. I should read thus: ἡμέρη καὶ εὐφρόνη ἐπὶ τὸ μήκιστον -καὶ ἐλάχιστον· ἥλιος, σελήνη ἐπὶ τὸ μήκιστον καὶ ἐλάχιστον· πυρὸς ἔφοδος -καὶ ὕδατος. In any case, the meaning is the same, and the sentence -occurs between χωρεῖ δὲ πάντα καὶ θεῖα καὶ ἀνθρώπινα ἄνω καὶ κάτω -ἀμειβόμενα and πάντα ταὐτὰ καὶ οὐ τὰ αὐτά, which are surely Herakleitean -utterances.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f385'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r385'>385</a>. Arist. <cite>de An.</cite> Α, 2. 405 a 25 (R. P. 38). Diels attributes to Herakleitos -himself the words καὶ ψυχαὶ δὲ ἀπὸ τῶν ὑγρῶν ἀναθυμιῶνται, which are -found in Areios Didymos after fr. 42. I can hardly believe, however, that -the <em>word</em> ἀναθυμίασις is Herakleitean. He seems rather to have called the -two exhalations καπνός and ἀήρ (cf. fr. 37).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f386'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r386'>386</a>. Περὶ διαίτης, i. 5, χωρεῖ δὲ πάντα καὶ θεῖα καὶ ἀνθρώπινα ἄνω καὶ -κάτω ἀμειβόμενα.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f387'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r387'>387</a>. We seem to have a clear reference to this in Epicharmos, fr. 2, Diels -(170 b, Kaibel): “Look now at men too. One grows and another passes -away, and all are in change always. What changes in its substance (κατὰ -φύσιν) and never abides in the same spot, will already be something different -from what has passed away. So thou and I were different yesterday, and -are now quite other people, and again we shall become others and never -the same again, and so on in the same way.” This is put into the mouth -of a debtor who does not wish to pay. See Bernays on the αὐξανόμενος -λόγος (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Ges. Abh.</cite></span> i. pp. 109 sqq.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f388'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r388'>388</a>. Sextus quotes “Ainesidemos according to Herakleitos.” Natorp -holds (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Forschungen</cite></span>, p. 78) that Ainesidemos really did combine -Herakleiteanism with Skepticism. Diels, on the other hand (<cite>Dox.</cite> pp. -210, 211), insists that Ainesidemos only gave an account of the theories of -Herakleitos. This controversy does not affect the use we make of the -passage.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f389'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r389'>389</a>. τὸ περιέχον ἡμᾶς, opposed to but parallel with τὸ περιέχον τὸν κόσμον.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f390'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r390'>390</a>. The popular word is used for the sake of its paradoxical effect. -Strictly speaking, they are all mortal from one point of view and immortal -from another.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f391'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r391'>391</a>. We need not hesitate to ascribe to Herakleitos the view that the dead -become guardian demons of the living; it appears already in Hesiod, -<cite>Works and Days</cite>, 121, and the Orphic communities had popularised it. -Rohde, <cite>Psyche</cite> (pp. 442 sqq.), refused to admit that Herakleitos believed -the soul survived after death. Strictly speaking, it is no doubt an -inconsistency; but I believe, with Zeller and Diels, that it is one of a kind -we may well admit. Many thinkers have spoken of a personal immortality, -though there was really no room for it in their systems. It is worthy of -note in this connexion that the first argument which Plato uses to -establish the doctrine of immortality in the <cite>Phaedo</cite> is just the Herakleitean -parallelism of life and death with sleeping and waking.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f392'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r392'>392</a>. These fragments are quoted by Plotinos, Iamblichos, and Noumenios -in this very connexion (see R. P. 46 c), and it does not seem to me possible -to hold, with Rohde, that they had no grounds for so interpreting them. -They knew the context and we do not.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f393'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r393'>393</a>. Plut. <cite>def. orac.</cite> 415 d, ἔτη τριάκοντα ποιοῦσι τὴν γενεὰν καθ’ Ἡράκλειτον, -ἐν ᾧ χρόνῳ γεννῶντα παρέχει τὸν ἐξ αὑτοῦ γεγεννημένον ὁ γεννήσας. -Philo, fr. Harris, p. 20, δυνατὸν ἐν τριακοστῷ ἔτει αὖ τὸν ἄνθρωπον πάππον -γενέσθαι κ.τ.λ. Censorinus, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de die nat.</cite></span> 17, 2, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“hoc enim tempus (triaginta -annos) <i>genean</i> vocari Heraclitus auctor est, quia <i>orbis aetatis</i> in eo sit spatio: -orbem autem vocat aetatis, dum natura ab sementi humana ad sementim -revertitur.”</span> The words <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>orbis aetatis</i></span> seem to mean αἰῶνος κύκλος, “the circle -of life.” If so, we may compare the Orphic κύκλος γενέσεως.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f394'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r394'>394</a>. Diog. ix. 9 (R. P. 39 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f395'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r395'>395</a>. See Kleanthes, fr. 29, Pearson, ὠκεανὸς δ’ ἐστὶ <καὶ γῆ> ἧς τὴν ἀναθυμίασιν -ἐπινέμεται (ὁ ἥλιος). Cf. Cic. <cite>N.D.</cite> iii. 37: <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“Quid enim? non eisdem -vobis placet omnem ignem pastus indigere nec permanere ullo modo posse, -nisi alitur: ali autem solem, lunam, reliqua astra aquis, alia dulcibus (from -the earth), alia marinis? eamque causam Cleanthes adfert cur se sol referat -nec longius progrediatur solstitiali orbi itemque brumali, ne longius discedat -a cibo.”</span></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f396'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r396'>396</a>. For the Greek text of this passage, see below, p. 183, <a href='#f413'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 413</ins></a>. Fredrichs -allows that it is from the same source as that quoted above (p. <a href='#Page_169'>169</a>), and, -as that comes from Περὶ διαίτης, i. 3, he denies the Herakleitean origin of -this too. He has not taken account of the fact that it gives the Stoic -doctrine, which raises a presumption in favour of that being Herakleitean. -If I could agree with Fredrichs’ theory, I should still say that the present -passage was a Herakleitean interpolation in the <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Physiker</cite></span> rather than that -the other was an interpolation from the <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Physiker</cite></span> in the Herakleitean section. -As it is, I find no difficulty in believing that both passages give the -Herakleitean doctrine, though it becomes mixed up with other theories in -the sequel. See p. 167, <a href='#f383'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 383</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f397'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r397'>397</a>. Aet. ii. 32, 3, Ἡράκλειτος ἐκ μυρίων ὀκτακισχιλίων ἐνιαυτῶν ἡλιακῶν -(τὸν μέγαν ἐνιαυτὸν εἶναι). Censorinus, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de die nat.</cite></span> 11, Heraclitus et Linus, -<span class='sc'>Xdccc</span>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f398'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r398'>398</a>. See Introd. § XII. p. 25, <a href='#f39'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 39</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f399'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r399'>399</a>. For the Stoic doctrine, cf. Nemesios, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de nat. hom.</cite></span> 38 (R. P. 503). -Mr. Adam allowed that no destruction of the world or conflagration -marked the end of Plato’s year, but he declined to draw what seems to me -the natural inference that the connexion between the two things belongs to -a later age, and should not, therefore, be ascribed to Herakleitos in the -absence of any evidence that he did so connect them. Nevertheless, -his treatment of these questions in the second volume of his edition of -the <cite>Republic</cite>, pp. 302 sqq., must form the basis of all further discussion on -the subject. It has certainly helped me to put the view which he rejects -(p. 303, n. 9) in what I hope will be found a more convincing form.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f400'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r400'>400</a>. This is certainly the general sense of the parallelism between the -periods of the ἀνθρώπειον and the θεῖον γεννητόν, however we may understand -the details. See Adam, <cite>Republic</cite>, vol. ii. pp. 288 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f401'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r401'>401</a>. Arist. <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Α, 10. 279 b 14, οἱ δ’ ἐναλλὰξ ὁτὲ μὲν οὕτως ὁτὲ δὲ -ἄλλως ἔχειν φθειρόμενον, ... ὥσπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ὀ Ἀκραγαντῖνος καὶ -Ἡράκλειτος ὁ Ἐφέσιος. Aristotle points out that this really amounts only -to saying that it is eternal and changes its form, ὥσπερ εἴ τις ἐκ παιδὸς ἄνδρα -γιγνόμενον καὶ ἐξ ἀνδρὸς παῖδα ὁτὲ μὲν φθείρεσθαι, ὁτὲ δ’ εἶναι οἴοιτο (280 a -14). The point of the reference to Empedokles will appear from <cite>de Gen. -Corr.</cite> Β, 6. 334 a 1 sqq. What Aristotle finds fault with in both theories is -that they do not regard the substance of the heavens as something outside -the upward and downward motion of the elements.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f402'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r402'>402</a>. This is practically Lassalle’s view of the Great Year, except that he -commits the anachronism of speaking of “atoms” of fire instead of -“measures.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f403'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r403'>403</a>. Schleiermacher and Lassalle are notable exceptions. Zeller, Diels, -and Gomperz are all positive that Herakleitos believed in the ἐκπύρωσις.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f404'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r404'>404</a>. In his fifth edition (p. 699) Zeller seems to feel this last difficulty; for -he now says: “It is a contradiction which he, <em>and which probably Plato too</em> -(<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>und den wahrscheinlich auch Plato</i></span>) has not observed.” This seems to me -still less arguable. Plato may or may not be mistaken; but he makes the -perfectly definite statement that Herakleitos says ἀεί, while Empedokles -says ἐν μέρει. The Ionian Muses are called συντονώτεραι and the Sicilian -μαλακώτεραι just because the latter “lowered the pitch” (ἐχάλασαν) of the -doctrine that this is always so (τὸ ἀεὶ ταῦτα οὕτως ἔχειν).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f405'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r405'>405</a>. See above, p. 177, <a href='#f401'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 401</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f406'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r406'>406</a>. <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ 5, 205 a 3 (<cite>Met.</cite> Κ, 10. 1067 a 4), ὥσπερ Ἡράκλειτός φησιν -ἅπαντα γίνεσθαί ποτε πῦρ. Even in his fifth edition (p. 691) Zeller -translates this <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>es werde alles dereinst zu Feuer werden</i></span>; but that would -require γενήσεσθαι. Nor is there anything in his suggestion that ἅπαντα -(“not merely πάντα”) implies that all things become fire at once. In -Aristotle’s day, there was no distinction of meaning between πᾶς and ἅπας. -Even if he had said σύμπαντα, we could not press it. What is really -noticeable is the present infinitive γίνεσθαι which surely suggests a continuous -process, not a series of conflagrations.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f407'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r407'>407</a>. Marcus Aurelius, x. 7, ὥστε καὶ ταῦτα ἀναληφθῆναι εἰς τὸν τοῦ ὅλου -λόγον, εἴτε κατὰ περίοδον ἐκπυρουμένου, εἴτε ἀιδίοις ἀμοιβαῖς ἀνανεουμένου. -The ἀμοιβαί are specifically Herakleitean, and the statement is the more -remarkable as Marcus elsewhere follows the usual Stoic interpretation.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f408'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r408'>408</a>. Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de def. orac.</cite></span> 415 f, καὶ ὁ Κλεόμβροτος, Ἀκούω ταῦτ’, ἔφη, πολλῶν -καὶ ὁρῶ τὴν Στωικὴν ἐκπύρωσιν ὥσπερ τὰ Ἡρακλείτου καὶ Ὀρφέως -ἐπινεμομένην ἔπη οὕτω καὶ τὰ Ἡσιόδου καὶ συνεξάπτουσαν. As Zeller admits -(p. 693 n.), this proves that some opponents of the Stoic ἐκπύρωσις tried -to withdraw the support of Herakleitos from it. Could they have done -so if Herakleitos had said anything about it, or would not some one -have produced a decisive quotation? We may be sure that, if any one -had, it would have been reiterated <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>ad nauseam</i></span>, for the indestructibility of -the world was one of the great questions of the day.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f409'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r409'>409</a>. Περὶ διαίτης, i. 3, ἐν μέρει δὲ ἑκάτερον κρατεῖ καὶ κρατεῖται ἐς τὸ -μήκιστον καὶ ἐλάχιστον ὡς ἀνυστόν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f410'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r410'>410</a>. If any one doubts that this is really the meaning of the “measures,” -let him compare the use of the word by Diogenes of Apollonia, fr. 3.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f411'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r411'>411</a>. This is just the argument which Plato uses in the <cite>Phaedo</cite> (72 c) to -prove the necessity of ἀνταπόδοσις, and the whole series of arguments in that -passage is distinctly Herakleitean in character.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f412'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r412'>412</a>. However we understand the term κόσμος here, the meaning is the -same. Indeed, if we suppose with Bernays that it means “order,” the -argument in the text will be all the stronger. In no sense of the word -could a κόσμος survive the ἐκπύρωσις, and the Stoics accordingly said the -κόσμος was φθαρτός.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f413'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r413'>413</a>. Περὶ διαίτης, i. 3 (see above, p. 167, <a href='#f383'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 383</ins></a>, οὐδέτερον γὰρ κρατῆσαι -παντελῶς δύναται διὰ τάδε· τό <τε> πῦρ ἐπεξιὸν ἐπὶ τὸ ἔσχατον τοῦ ὕδατος -ἐπιλείπει ἡ τροφή· ἀποτρέπεται οὖν ὅθεν μέλλει τρέφεσθαι· τὸ ὕδωρ τε ἐπεξιὸν -τοῦ πυρὸς ἐπὶ τὸ ἔσχατον, ἐπιλείπει ἡ κίνησις· ἵσταται οὖν ἐν τούτῳ, ὅταν -δὲ στῇ, οὐκέτι ἐγκρατές ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ἤδη τῷ ἐμπίπτοντι πυρὶ ἐς τῆν τροφὴν -καταναλίσκεται· οὐδέτερον δὲ διὰ ταῦτα δύναται κρατῆσαι παντελῶς, εἰ δέ -ποτε κρατηθείη καὶ ὁπότερον, οὐδὲν ἂν εἴη τῶν νῦν ἐόντων ὥσπερ ἔχει νῦν· -οὕτω δὲ ἐχόντων ἀεὶ ἔσται τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ οὐδέτερον οὐδαμὰ ἐπιλείψει.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f414'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r414'>414</a>. In his note on fr. 66 (= 26 Byw.), Diels seeks to minimise the difficulty -of the ἐκπύρωσις by saying that it is only a little one, and can last but a -moment; but the contradiction noted above remains all the same. Diels -holds that Herakleitos was “dark only in form,” and that “he himself -was perfectly clear as to the sense and scope of his ideas” (<cite>Herakleitos</cite>, -p. i.). To which I would add that he was probably called “the Dark” -just because the Stoics sometimes found it hard to read their own ideas -into his words.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f415'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r415'>415</a>. Campbell’s <cite>Theaetetus</cite> (2nd ed.), p. 244. See above, p. 150, <a href='#f347'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 347</ins></a>. -Bernays explained the phrase as referring to the <em>shape</em> of the bow and lyre, -but this is much less likely. Wilamowitz’s interpretation is substantially -the same as Campbell’s. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Es ist mit der Welt wie mit dem Bogen, den -man auseinanderzieht, damit er zusammenschnellt, wie mit der Saite, die -man ihrer Spannung entgegenziehen muss, damit sie klingt”</span> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Lesebuch</cite></span>, ii. -p. 129).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f416'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r416'>416</a>. See on all this Patin’s <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Quellenstudien zu Heraklit</cite></span> (1881). The -sentence (Περὶ διαίτης, i. 5): καὶ τὰ μὲν πρήσσουσιν οὐκ οἴδασιν, ἃ δὲ οὐ -πρήσσουσι δοκέουσιν εἰδέναι· καὶ τὰ μὲν ὁρέουσιν οὐ γινώσκουσιν, ἀλλ’ ὅμως -αὐτοῖσι πάντα γίνεται ... καὶ ἃ βούλονται καὶ ἃ μὴ βούλονται, has the -true Herakleitean ring. This, too, can hardly have had another author: -“They trust to their eyes rather than to their understanding, though their -eyes are not fit to judge even of the things that are seen. But I speak -these things from understanding.” These words are positively grotesque in -the mouth of the medical compiler; but we are accustomed to hear such -things from the Ephesian. Other examples which may be Herakleitean are -the image of the two men sawing wood—“one pushes, the other pulls”—and -the illustration from the art of writing.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f417'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r417'>417</a>. Chap. I. <a href='#sec16'>§ 16.</a></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f418'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r418'>418</a>. Plato’s exposition of the relativity of knowledge in the <cite>Theaetetus</cite> (152 -d sqq.) can hardly go back to Herakleitos himself, but is meant to show -how Herakleiteanism might naturally give rise to such a doctrine. If the -soul is a stream and things are a stream, then of course knowledge is relative. -Very possibly the later Herakleiteans had worked out the theory in this -direction, but in the days of Herakleitos himself the problem of knowledge -had not yet arisen.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f419'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r419'>419</a>. E. Pfleiderer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus im Lichte der -Mysterienidee</cite></span> (1886).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f420'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r420'>420</a>. Antisthenes (the writer of <cite>Successions</cite>) <i>ap.</i> Diog. ix. 6 (R. P. 31). -Cf. Strabo, xiv. p. 633 (R. P. 31 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f421'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r421'>421</a>. Köstlin, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. d. Ethik</cite></span></span>, i. pp. 160 sqq.</p> -</div> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_192'>192</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER IV <br /> PARMENIDES OF ELEA</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Life.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec84'></a>84. Parmenides, son of Pyres, was a citizen of -Hyele, Elea, or Velia, a colony founded in Oinotria -by refugees from Phokaia in 540-39 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span><a id='r422' /><a href='#f422' class='c014'><sup>[422]</sup></a> Diogenes -tells us that he “flourished” in Ol. LXIX. (504-500 -<span class='fss'>B.C.</span>), and this was doubtless the date given by -Apollodoros.<a id='r423' /><a href='#f423' class='c014'><sup>[423]</sup></a> On the other hand, Plato says that -Parmenides came to Athens in his sixty-fifth year, -accompanied by Zeno, and conversed with Sokrates, -who was then quite young. Now Sokrates was just -over seventy when he was put to death in 399 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>; -and therefore, if we suppose him to have been an -<em>ephebos</em>, that is, from eighteen to twenty years old, -at the time of his interview with Parmenides, we get -451-449 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> as the date of that event. I do not -hesitate to accept Plato’s statement,<a id='r424' /><a href='#f424' class='c014'><sup>[424]</sup></a> especially as -<span class='pageno' id='Page_193'>193</span>we have independent evidence of the visit of Zeno -to Athens, where Perikles is said to have “heard” -him.<a id='r425' /><a href='#f425' class='c014'><sup>[425]</sup></a> The date given by Apollodoros, on the other -hand, depends solely on that of the foundation of Elea, -which he had adopted as the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>floruit</cite></span> of Xenophanes. -Parmenides is born in that year, just as Zeno is born -in the year when Parmenides “flourished.” Why any -one should prefer these transparent combinations to -the testimony of Plato, I am at a loss to understand, -though it is equally a mystery why Apollodoros himself -should have overlooked such precise data.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We have seen already (<a href='#sec55'>§ 55</a>) that Aristotle -mentions a statement which made Parmenides the -disciple of Xenophanes; but the value of this testimony -is diminished by the doubtful way in which -he speaks, and it is more than likely that he is -only referring to what Plato says in the <cite>Sophist</cite>.<a id='r426' /><a href='#f426' class='c014'><sup>[426]</sup></a> -It is, we also saw, very improbable that Xenophanes -founded the school of Elea, though it is quite possible -he visited that city. He tells us himself that, in his -ninety-second year, he was still wandering up and down -(fr. 8). At that time Parmenides would be well advanced -in life. And we must not overlook the statement -of Sotion, preserved to us by Diogenes, that, though -Parmenides “heard” Xenophanes, he did not “follow” -him. According to this account, our philosopher was -the “associate” of a Pythagorean, Ameinias, son of -Diochaitas, “a poor but noble man to whom he -afterwards built a shrine as to a hero.” It was -<span class='pageno' id='Page_194'>194</span>Ameinias and not Xenophanes that “converted” -Parmenides to the philosophic life.<a id='r427' /><a href='#f427' class='c014'><sup>[427]</sup></a> This does not -read like an invention, and we must remember that the -Alexandrians had information about the history of -Southern Italy which we have not. The shrine erected -by Parmenides would still be there in later days, like -the grave of Pythagoras at Metapontion. It should -also be mentioned that Strabo describes Parmenides -and Zeno as Pythagoreans, and that Kebes talks of a -“Parmenidean and Pythagorean way of life.”<a id='r428' /><a href='#f428' class='c014'><sup>[428]</sup></a> Zeller -explains all this by supposing that, like Empedokles, -Parmenides approved of and followed the Pythagorean -mode of life without adopting the Pythagorean system. -It is possibly true that Parmenides believed in a -“philosophic life” (<a href='#sec35'>§ 35</a>), and that he got the idea -from the Pythagoreans; but there is very little -trace, either in his writings or in what we are told -about him, of his having been in any way affected -by the religious side of Pythagoreanism. The writing -of Empedokles is obviously modelled upon that of -Parmenides, and yet there is an impassable gulf between -the two. The touch of charlatanism, which is so -strange a feature in the copy, is altogether absent -from the model. It is true, no doubt, that there -are traces of Orphic ideas in the poem of Parmenides;<a id='r429' /><a href='#f429' class='c014'><sup>[429]</sup></a> -<span class='pageno' id='Page_195'>195</span>but they are all to be found either in the allegorical -introduction or in the second part of the poem, and -we need not therefore take them very seriously. Now -Parmenides was a western Hellene, and he had -probably been a Pythagorean, so it is not a little -remarkable that he should be so free from the common -tendency of his age and country. It is here, if anywhere, -that we may trace the influence of Xenophanes. -As regards his relation to the Pythagorean system, we -shall have something to say later on. At present we -need only note further that, like most of the older -philosophers, he took part in politics; and Speusippos -recorded that he legislated for his native city. Others -add that the magistrates of Elea made the citizens -swear every year to abide by the laws which Parmenides -had given them.<a id='r430' /><a href='#f430' class='c014'><sup>[430]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The poem.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec85'></a>85. Parmenides was really the first philosopher to -expound his system in metrical language. As there is -some confusion on this subject, it deserves a few words -of explanation. In writing of Empedokles, Mr. J. A. -Symonds said: “The age in which he lived had not -yet thrown off the form of poetry in philosophical -composition. Even Parmenides had committed his -austere theories to hexameter verse.” Now this is -wrongly put. The earliest philosophers, Anaximander, -Anaximenes, and Herakleitos, all wrote in prose, and -the only Greeks who ever wrote philosophy in verse -<span class='pageno' id='Page_196'>196</span>at all were just these two, Parmenides and Empedokles; -for Xenophanes was not primarily a philosopher -any more than Epicharmos. Empedokles copied -Parmenides; and he, no doubt, was influenced by -Xenophanes and the Orphics. But the thing was an -innovation, and one that did not maintain itself.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The fragments of Parmenides are preserved for the -most part by Simplicius, who fortunately inserted them -in his commentary, because in his time the original -work was already rare.<a id='r431' /><a href='#f431' class='c014'><sup>[431]</sup></a> I follow the arrangement of -Diels.</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c013'> - <div><a id='Pa.1'></a>(1)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The car that bears me carried me as far as ever my heart -desired, since it brought me and set me on the renowned -way of the goddess, which alone leads the man who knows -through all things. On that way was I borne along; for on -it did the wise steeds carry me, drawing my car, and maidens<span class='linenum'>5</span> -showed the way. And the axle, glowing in the socket—for -it was urged round by the whirling wheels at each end—gave -forth a sound as of a pipe, when the daughters of the -Sun, hasting to convey me into the light, threw back their -veils from off their faces and left the abode of Night. <span class='linenum'>10</span></p> - -<p class='c002'>There are the gates of the ways of Night and Day,<a id='r432' /><a href='#f432' class='c014'><sup>[432]</sup></a> fitted -above with a lintel and below with a threshold of stone. -They themselves, high in the air, are closed by mighty doors, -and Avenging Justice keeps the keys that fit them. Her did -the maidens entreat with gentle words and cunningly persuade <span class='linenum'>15</span> -to unfasten without demur the bolted bars from the gates. -Then, when the doors were thrown back, they disclosed a -wide opening, when their brazen posts fitted with rivets and -nails swung back one after the other. Straight through them, -on the broad way, did the maidens guide the horses and the <span class='linenum'>20</span> -<span class='pageno' id='Page_197'>197</span>car, and the goddess greeted me kindly, and took my right -hand in hers, and spake to me these words:</p> - -<p class='c002'>Welcome, O youth, that comest to my abode on the car -that bears thee tended by immortal charioteers! It is no ill <span class='linenum'>25</span> -chance, but right and justice that has sent thee forth to -travel on this way. Far, indeed, does it lie from the beaten -track of men! Meet it is that thou shouldst learn all things, -as well the unshaken heart of well-rounded truth, as the -opinions of mortals in which is no true belief at all. Yet <span class='linenum'>30</span> -none the less shalt thou learn these things also,—how they -should have judged that the things which seem to them -are,—as thou goest through all things in thy journey.<a id='r433' /><a href='#f433' class='c014'><sup>[433]</sup></a></p> - -<hr class='c019' /> - -<p class='c002'>But do thou restrain thy thought from this way of inquiry, -nor let habit by its much experience force thee to cast upon -this way a wandering eye or sounding ear or tongue; but <span class='linenum'>35</span> -judge by argument the much disputed proof uttered by me. -There is only one way left that can be spoken of.<a id='r434' /><a href='#f434' class='c014'><sup>[434]</sup></a>... R. P. -113.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='sc'>The Way of Truth</span></div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div><a id='Pa.2'></a>(2)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Look <a id='corr197.21'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='steafdastly'>steadfastly</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_197.21'><ins class='correction' title='steafdastly'>steadfastly</ins></a></span> with thy mind at things though afar as -if they were at hand. Thou canst not cut off what is from -holding fast to what is, neither scattering itself abroad in -order nor coming together. R. P. 118 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(3)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It is all one to me where I begin; for I shall come back -again there.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Pa.4'></a><a id='Pa.5'></a>(4, 5)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Come now, I will tell thee—and do thou hearken to my -saying and carry it away—the only two ways of search that -can be thought of. The first, namely, that <em>It is</em>, and that it -is impossible for it not to be, is the way of belief, for truth is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_198'>198</span>its companion. The other, namely, that <em>It is not</em>, and that <span class='linenum'>5</span> -it must needs not be,—that, I tell thee, is a path that none can -learn of at all. For thou canst not know what is not—that -is impossible—nor utter it; for it is the same thing that can -be thought and that can be.<a id='r435' /><a href='#f435' class='c014'><sup>[435]</sup></a> R. P. 114.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Pa.6'></a>(6)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It needs must be that what can be thought and spoken of -is; for it is possible for it to be, and it is not possible for -what is nothing to be.<a id='r436' /><a href='#f436' class='c014'><sup>[436]</sup></a> This is what I bid thee ponder. I -hold thee back from this first way of inquiry, and from this -other also, upon which mortals knowing naught wander <span class='linenum'>5</span> -two-faced; for helplessness guides the wandering thought in -their breasts, so that they are borne along stupefied like men -deaf and blind. Undiscerning crowds, in whose eyes it is, -and is not, the same and not the same,<a id='r437' /><a href='#f437' class='c014'><sup>[437]</sup></a> and all things travel -in opposite directions!<a id='r438' /><a href='#f438' class='c014'><sup>[438]</sup></a> R. P. 115.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(7)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For this shall never be proved, that the things that are not -<span class='pageno' id='Page_199'>199</span>are; and do thou restrain thy thought from this way of -inquiry. R. P. 116.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Pa.8'></a>(8)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>One path only is left for us to speak of, namely, that <em>It is</em>. -In it are very many tokens that what is is uncreated and -indestructible; for it is complete,<a id='r439' /><a href='#f439' class='c014'><sup>[439]</sup></a> immovable, and without -end. Nor was it ever, nor will it be; for now <em>it is</em>, all at -once, a continuous one. For what kind of origin for it wilt <span class='linenum'>5</span> -thou look for? In what way and from what source could it -have drawn its increase? I shall not let thee say nor think -that it came from what is not; for it can neither be thought -nor uttered that anything is not. And, if it came from nothing, -what need could have made it arise later rather than sooner? <span class='linenum'>10</span> -Therefore must it either be altogether or be not at all. Nor -will the force of truth suffer aught to arise besides itself from -that which is not.<a id='r440' /><a href='#f440' class='c014'><sup>[440]</sup></a> Wherefore, Justice doth not loose her -fetters and let anything come into being or pass away, but -holds it fast. Our judgment thereon depends on this: “<em>Is it</em> <span class='linenum'>15</span> -or <em>is it not</em>?” Surely it is adjudged, as it needs must be, -that we are to set aside the one way as unthinkable and -nameless (for it is no true way), and that the other path is -real and true. How, then, can what <em>is</em> be going to be in the -future? Or how could it come into being? If it came into <span class='linenum'>20</span> -being, it is not; nor is it if it is going to be in the future. -Thus is becoming extinguished and passing away not to be -heard of. R. P. 117.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Nor is it divisible, since it is all alike, and there is no more<a id='r441' /><a href='#f441' class='c014'><sup>[441]</sup></a> -<span class='pageno' id='Page_200'>200</span>of it in one place than in another, to hinder it from holding -together, nor less of it, but everything is full of what is. -Wherefore it is wholly continuous; for what is, is in contact <span class='linenum'>25</span> -with what is.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Moreover, it is immovable in the bonds of mighty chains, -without beginning and without end; since coming into being -and passing away have been driven afar, and true belief has -cast them away. It is the same, and it rests in the self-same -place, abiding in itself. And thus it remaineth constant in <span class='linenum'>30</span> -its place; for hard necessity keeps it in the bonds of the -limit that holds it fast on every side. Wherefore it is not permitted -to what is to be infinite; for it is in need of nothing; -while, if it were infinite, it would stand in need of everything.<a id='r442' /><a href='#f442' class='c014'><sup>[442]</sup></a> -R. P. 118.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The thing that can be thought and that for the sake of -which the thought exists is the same;<a id='r443' /><a href='#f443' class='c014'><sup>[443]</sup></a> for you cannot find <span class='linenum'>35</span> -thought without something that is, as to which it is uttered.<a id='r444' /><a href='#f444' class='c014'><sup>[444]</sup></a> -And there is not, and never shall be, anything besides what -is, since fate has chained it so as to be whole and immovable. -Wherefore all these things are but names which mortals have -given, believing them to be true—coming into being and <span class='linenum'>40</span> -passing away, being and not being, change of place and -alteration of bright colour. R. P. 119.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Since, then, it has a furthest limit, it is complete on every -side, like the mass of a rounded sphere, equally poised from -the centre in every direction; for it cannot be greater or <span class='linenum'>45</span> -smaller in one place than in another. For there is no nothing -<span class='pageno' id='Page_201'>201</span>that could keep it from reaching out equally, nor can aught -that is be more here and less there than what is, since it is all -inviolable. For the point from which it is equal in every -direction tends equally to the limits. R. P. 120.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c013'> - <div><span class='sc'>The Way of Opinion</span></div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Here shall I close my trustworthy speech and thought <span class='linenum'>50</span> -about the truth. Henceforward learn the opinions of mortals, -giving ear to the deceptive ordering of my words.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Mortals have made up their minds to name two forms, -one of which they should not name,<a id='r445' /><a href='#f445' class='c014'><sup>[445]</sup></a> and that is where they -go astray from the truth. They have distinguished them as <span class='linenum'>55</span> -opposite in form, and have assigned to them marks distinct -from one another. To the one they allot the fire of heaven, -gentle, very light, in every direction the same as itself, but not -the same as the other. The other is just the opposite to it, -dark night, a compact and heavy body. Of these I tell thee <span class='linenum'>60</span> -the whole arrangement as it seems likely; for so no thought -of mortals will ever outstrip thee. R. P. 121.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(9)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Now that all things have been named light and night, and -the names which belong to the power of each have been -assigned to these things and to those, everything is full at -once of light and dark night, both equal, since neither has -aught to do with the other.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Pa.10'></a><a id='Pa.11'></a>(10, 11)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And thou shalt know the substance of the sky, and all the -signs in the sky, and the resplendent works of the glowing -sun’s pure torch, and whence they arose. And thou shalt learn -likewise of the wandering deeds of the round-faced moon, and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_202'>202</span>of her substance. Thou shalt know, too, the heavens that surround <span class='linenum'>5</span> -us, whence they arose, and how Necessity took them and -bound them to keep the limits of the stars ... how the earth, -and the sun, and the moon, and the sky that is common to all, -and the Milky Way, and the outermost Olympos, and the -burning might of the stars arose. <span class='linenum'>10</span> R. P. 123, 124.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Pa.12'></a>(12)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The narrower rings are filled with unmixed fire, and those -next them with night, and in the midst of these rushes their -portion of fire. In the midst of these circles is the divinity -that directs the course of all things; for she is the beginner of -all painful birth and all begetting, driving the female to the <span class='linenum'>5</span> -embrace of the male, and the male to that of the female. -R. P. 125.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Pa.13'></a>(13)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>First of all the gods she contrived Eros. R. P. 125.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Pa.14'></a>(14)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Shining by night with borrowed light,<a id='r446' /><a href='#f446' class='c014'><sup>[446]</sup></a> wandering round -the earth.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(15)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Always looking to the beams of the sun.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Pa.16'></a>(16)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For just as thought finds at any time the mixture of its -erring organs, so does it come to men; for that which thinks -is the same, namely, the substance of the limbs, in each and -every man; for their thought is that of which there is more in -them.<a id='r447' /><a href='#f447' class='c014'><sup>[447]</sup></a> R. P. 128.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_203'>203</span><a id='Pa.17'></a>(17)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>On the right boys; on the left girls.<a id='r448' /><a href='#f448' class='c014'><sup>[448]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(19)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Thus, according to men’s opinions, did things come into -being, and thus they are now. In time they will grow up -and pass away. To each of these things men have assigned -a fixed name. R. P. 129 b.</p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>“It is.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec86'></a>86. In the First Part of his poem, we find -Parmenides chiefly interested to prove that <em>it is</em>; but -it is not quite obvious at first sight what it is precisely -that <em>is</em>. He says simply, <em>What is, is</em>. To us this does -not seem very clear, and that for two reasons. In the -first place, we should never think of doubting it, and -we cannot, therefore, understand why it should be -asserted with such iteration and vigour. In the second -place, we are accustomed to all sorts of distinctions -between different kinds and degrees of reality, and we -do not see which of these is meant. Such distinctions, -however, were quite unknown in those days. “That -which is,” with Parmenides, is primarily what, in -popular language, we call matter or body; only it is -not matter as distinguished from anything else. It is -certainly regarded as spatially extended; for it is quite -seriously spoken of as a sphere (fr. <a href='#Pa.8'>8</a>, 40). Moreover, -Aristotle tells us that Parmenides believed in none but -a sensible reality, which does not necessarily mean with -him a reality that is actually perceived by the senses, -but includes any which might be so perceived if the -senses were more perfect than they are.<a id='r449' /><a href='#f449' class='c014'><sup>[449]</sup></a> Parmenides -<span class='pageno' id='Page_204'>204</span>does not say a word about “Being” anywhere.<a id='r450' /><a href='#f450' class='c014'><sup>[450]</sup></a> The -assertion that <em>it is</em> amounts just to this, that the -universe is a <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>plenum</i></span>; and that there is no such thing -as empty space, either inside or outside the world. -From this it follows that there can be no such thing as -motion. Instead of endowing the One with an impulse -to change, as Herakleitos had done, and thus making -it capable of explaining the world, Parmenides dismissed -change as an illusion. He showed once for all -that if you take the One seriously you are bound to -deny everything else. All previous solutions of the -question, therefore, had missed the point. Anaximenes, -who thought to save the unity of the primary substance -by his theory of rarefaction and condensation, did not -observe that, by assuming there was less of what is in -one place than another, he virtually affirmed the existence -of what is not (fr. <a href='#Pa.8'>8</a>, 42). The Pythagorean -explanation implied that empty space or air existed -outside the world, and that it entered into it to separate -the units (<a href='#sec53'>§ 53</a>). It, too, assumes the existence of -what is not. Nor is the theory of Herakleitos any -more satisfactory; for it is based upon the contradiction -that fire both is and is not (fr. <a href='#Pa.6'>6</a>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The allusion to Herakleitos in the verses last referred -<span class='pageno' id='Page_205'>205</span>to has been doubted, though upon insufficient grounds. -Zeller points out quite rightly that Herakleitos never -says Being and not-Being are the same (the common -translation of fr. <a href='#An.6'>6</a>, <a href='#An.8'>8</a>); and, were there nothing more -than this, the reference might well seem doubtful. -The statement, however, that, according to the view in -question, “all things travel in opposite directions,” can -hardly be understood of anything but the “upward and -downward path” of Herakleitos (<a href='#sec71'>§ 71</a>). And, as we -have seen, Parmenides does not attribute the view that -Being and not-Being are the same to the philosopher -whom he is attacking; he only says that <em>it</em> is and is not, -the same and not the same.<a id='r451' /><a href='#f451' class='c014'><sup>[451]</sup></a> That is the natural -meaning of the words; and it furnishes a very accurate -description of the theory of Herakleitos.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The method of Parmenides.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec87'></a>87. The great novelty in the poem of Parmenides -is the method of argument. He first asks what is the -common presupposition of all the views with which he -has to deal, and he finds that this is the existence of -what is not. The next question is whether this can be -thought, and the answer is that it cannot. If you think -at all, you must think of something. Therefore there -is no nothing. Philosophy had not yet learned to -make the admission that a thing might be unthinkable -and nevertheless exist. Only that can be which can -be thought (fr. <a href='#Pa.5'>5</a>); for thought exists for the sake of -what is (fr. <a href='#Pa.8'>8</a>, 34).</p> - -<p class='c002'>This method Parmenides carries out with the utmost -rigour. He will not have us pretend that we think -what we must admit to be unthinkable. It is true that -if we resolve to allow nothing but what we can understand, -we come into direct conflict with the evidence -<span class='pageno' id='Page_206'>206</span>of our senses, which present us with a world of change -and decay. So much the worse for the senses, says -Parmenides. To many this will doubtless seem a -mistake on his part, but let us see what history has to -say on the point. The theory of Parmenides is the -inevitable outcome of a corporeal monism, and his bold -declaration of it ought to have destroyed that theory -for ever. If he had lacked courage to work out the -prevailing views of his time to their logical conclusion, -and to accept that conclusion, however paradoxical it -might seem to be, men might have gone on in the -endless circle of opposition, rarefaction and condensation, -one and many, for ever. It was the thorough-going -dialectic of Parmenides that made progress -possible. Philosophy must now cease to be monistic -or cease to be corporealist. It could not cease to be -corporealist; for the incorporeal was still unknown. It -therefore ceased to be monistic, and arrived at the -atomic theory, which, so far as we know, is the last -word of the view that the world is matter in motion. -Having worked out its problems on those conditions, -philosophy next attacked them on the other side. It -ceased to be corporealist, and found it possible to be -monistic once more, at least for a time. This progress -would have been impossible but for that faith in reason -which gave Parmenides the courage to reject as untrue -what was to him unthinkable, however strange the -result might be.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The results.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec88'></a>88. He goes on to develop all the consequences of -the admission that <em>it is</em>. It must be uncreated and -indestructible. It cannot have arisen out of nothing; -for there is no such thing as nothing. Nor can it have -arisen from something; for there is no room for anything -<span class='pageno' id='Page_207'>207</span>but itself. What is cannot have beside it any -empty space in which something else might arise; for -empty space is nothing, nothing cannot be thought, and -therefore cannot exist. What is, never came into being, -nor is anything going to come into being in the future. -“Is it or is it not?” If it is, then it is now, all at -once.</p> - -<p class='c002'>That Parmenides was really denying the existence -of empty space was quite well known to Plato. He -says that Parmenides held “all things were one, and -that the one remains at rest in itself, <em>having no place in -which to move</em>.”<a id='r452' /><a href='#f452' class='c014'><sup>[452]</sup></a> Aristotle is no less clear. In the -<cite>de Caelo</cite> he lays it down that Parmenides was driven -to take up the position that the One was immovable -just because no one had yet imagined that there was -any reality other than sensible reality.<a id='r453' /><a href='#f453' class='c014'><sup>[453]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>That which is, is; and it cannot be more or less. -There is, therefore, as much of it in one place as in -another, and the world is a continuous, indivisible -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>plenum</i></span>. From this it follows at once that it must be -immovable. If it moved, it must move into an empty -space, and there is no empty space. It is hemmed in -by <em>what is</em>, by the real, on every side. For the same -reason, it must be finite, and can have nothing beyond -it. It is complete in itself, and has no need to stretch -out indefinitely into an empty space that does not exist. -Hence, too, it is spherical. It is equally real in every -direction, and the sphere is the only form which meets -this condition. Any other would <em>be</em> in one direction -more than in another. And this sphere cannot even -<span class='pageno' id='Page_208'>208</span>move round its own axis; for there is nothing outside -of it with reference to which it could be said to move.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Parmenides the father of materialism.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec89'></a>89. To sum up. What <em>is</em>, is a finite, spherical, -motionless corporeal <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>plenum</i></span>, and there is nothing beyond -it. The appearances of multiplicity and motion, empty -space and time, are illusions. We see from this that -the primary substance of which the early cosmologists -were in search has now become a sort of “thing in -itself.” It never quite lost this character again. What -appears later as the elements of Empedokles, the so-called -“homoeomeries” of Anaxagoras and the atoms -of Leukippos and Demokritos, is just the Parmenidean -“being.” Parmenides is not, as some have said, the -“father of idealism”; on the contrary, all materialism -depends on his view of reality.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The beliefs of “mortals.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec90'></a>90. It is commonly said that, in the Second Part of -his poem, Parmenides offered a dualistic theory of the -origin of things as his own conjectural explanation of -the sensible world, or that, as Gomperz says, “What -he offered were the Opinions of Mortals; and this -description did not merely cover other people’s opinions. -It included his own as well, as far as they were not -confined to the unassailable ground of an apparent -philosophical necessity.”<a id='r454' /><a href='#f454' class='c014'><sup>[454]</sup></a> Now it is true that in one -place Aristotle appears to countenance a view of this -sort, but nevertheless it is an anachronism.<a id='r455' /><a href='#f455' class='c014'><sup>[455]</sup></a> Nor is it -really Aristotle’s view. He was perfectly well aware -<span class='pageno' id='Page_209'>209</span>that Parmenides did not admit the existence of “not-being” -in any degree whatever; but it was a natural -way speaking to call the cosmology of the Second -Part of the poem that of Parmenides. His hearers -would understand at once in what sense this was -meant. At any rate, the Peripatetic tradition was that -Parmenides, in the Second Part of the poem, meant -to give the belief of “the many.” This is how -Theophrastos put the matter, and Alexander seems to -have spoken of the cosmology as something which -Parmenides himself regarded as wholly false.<a id='r456' /><a href='#f456' class='c014'><sup>[456]</sup></a> The -other view comes from the Neoplatonists, and especially -Simplicius, who very naturally regarded the Way of -Truth as an account of the intelligible world, and the -Way of Opinion as a description of the sensible. It -need hardly be said that this is almost as great an -anachronism as the Kantian parallelism suggested by -Gomperz.<a id='r457' /><a href='#f457' class='c014'><sup>[457]</sup></a> Parmenides himself tells us in the most -unequivocal language that there is no truth at all in -the theory which he expounds, and he gives it merely -as the belief of “mortals.” It was this that led -Theophrastos to speak of it as the opinion of “the -many.”</p> - -<p class='c002'>His explanation however, though preferable to that -of Simplicius, is not convincing either. “The many” -<span class='pageno' id='Page_210'>210</span>are as far as possible from believing in an elaborate -dualism such as Parmenides expounded, and it is a -highly artificial hypothesis to assume that he wished -to show how the popular view of the world could best -be systematised. “The many” would hardly be -convinced of their error by having their beliefs -presented to them in a form which they would certainly -fail to recognise. This, indeed, seems the most -incredible interpretation of all. It still, however, finds -adherents, so it is necessary to point out that the -beliefs in question are called “the opinions of mortals” -simply because the speaker is a goddess. Further, -we have to note that Parmenides forbids two ways of -research, and we have seen that the second of these, -which is also expressly ascribed to “mortals,” must be -the system of Herakleitos. We should surely expect, -then, to find that the other way too is the system of -some contemporary school, and it seems hard to -discover any of sufficient importance except the -Pythagorean. Now it is admitted by every one that -there are Pythagorean ideas in the Second Part of the -poem, and it is therefore to be presumed, in the absence -of evidence to the contrary, that the whole system -comes from the same source. It does not appear that -Parmenides said any more about Herakleitos than the -words to which we have just referred, in which he -forbids the second way of inquiry. He implies, indeed, -that there are really only two ways that can be thought -of, and that the attempt of Herakleitos to combine -them was futile.<a id='r458' /><a href='#f458' class='c014'><sup>[458]</sup></a> In any case, the Pythagoreans -<span class='pageno' id='Page_211'>211</span>were far more serious opponents at that date in Italy, -and it is certainly to them that we should expect -Parmenides to define his attitude.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is still not quite clear, however, why he should -have thought it worth while to put into hexameters a -view which he believed to be false. Here it becomes -important to remember that he had been a Pythagorean -himself, and that the poem is a renunciation of his -former beliefs. In such cases men commonly feel the -necessity of showing where their old views were wrong. -The goddess tells him that he must learn of those -beliefs also “how men ought to have judged that the -things which seem to them really are.”<a id='r459' /><a href='#f459' class='c014'><sup>[459]</sup></a> That is clear -so far; but it does not explain the matter fully. We -get a further hint in another place. He is to learn -these beliefs “in order that no opinion of mortals may -ever get the better of him” (fr. <a href='#Pa.8'>8</a>, 61). If we remember -that the Pythagorean system at this time was handed -down by oral tradition alone, we shall perhaps see -what this means. Parmenides was founding a dissident -school, and it was quite necessary for him to -instruct his disciples in the system they might be called -upon to oppose. In any case, they could not reject -it intelligently without a knowledge of it, and this -Parmenides had to supply himself.<a id='r460' /><a href='#f460' class='c014'><sup>[460]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The dualist cosmology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_212'>212</span><a id='sec91'></a>91. The view that the Second Part of the poem -of Parmenides was a sketch of contemporary Pythagorean -cosmology is, doubtless, incapable of rigorous -demonstration, but it can, I think, be made extremely -probable. The entire history of Pythagoreanism up to -the end of the fifth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> is certainly conjectural; -but, if we find in Parmenides ideas which are wholly -unconnected with his own view of the world, and if we -find precisely the same ideas in later Pythagoreanism, -the most natural inference will surely be that the later -Pythagoreans derived these views from their predecessors, -and that they formed part of the original -stock-in-trade of the society to which they belonged. -This will only be confirmed if we find that they are -developments of certain features in the old Ionian -cosmology. Pythagoras came from Samos, which always -stood in the closest relations with Miletos; and it was -not, so far as we can see, in his cosmological views that -he chiefly displayed his originality. It has been pointed -out above (<a href='#sec53'>§ 53</a>) that the idea of the world breathing -came from Anaximenes, and we need not be surprised to -find traces of Anaximander as well. Now, if we were -<span class='pageno' id='Page_213'>213</span>confined to what Aristotle tells us on this subject, it -would be almost impossible to make out a case; but -his statements require, as usual, to be examined with -a certain amount of care. He says, first of all, that the -two elements of Parmenides were the Warm and the -Cold.<a id='r461' /><a href='#f461' class='c014'><sup>[461]</sup></a> In this he is so far justified by the fragments -that, since the Fire of which Parmenides speaks is, of -course, warm, the other “form,” which has all the -opposite qualities, must of necessity be cold. But, nevertheless, -the habitual use of the terms “<em>the</em> warm” and -“<em>the</em> cold” is an accommodation to Aristotle’s own -system. In Parmenides himself they were simply one -pair of attributes amongst others.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Still more misleading is Aristotle’s identification of -these with Fire and Earth. It is not quite certain that -he meant to say Parmenides himself made this identification; -but, on the whole, it is most likely that he did, -and <a id='corr213.18'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='Theophastros'>Theophrastos</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_213.18'><ins class='correction' title='Theophastros'>Theophrastos</ins></a></span> certainly followed him in this.<a id='r462' /><a href='#f462' class='c014'><sup>[462]</sup></a> It is -another question whether it is accurate. Simplicius, -who had the poem before him (<a href='#sec85'>§ 85</a>), after mentioning -Fire and Earth, at once adds “or rather Light and -Darkness”;<a id='r463' /><a href='#f463' class='c014'><sup>[463]</sup></a> and this is suggestive enough. Lastly, -Aristotle’s identification of the dense element with -“what is not,”<a id='r464' /><a href='#f464' class='c014'><sup>[464]</sup></a> the unreal of the First Part of the poem, -is not very easy to reconcile with the view that it is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_214'>214</span>earth. On the other hand, if we suppose that the -second of the two “forms,” the one which should not -have been “named,” is the Pythagorean Air or Void, we -get a very good explanation of Aristotle’s identification -of it with “what is not.” We seem, then, to be -justified in neglecting the identification of the dense -element with earth for the present. At a later stage, -we shall be able to see how it may have originated.<a id='r465' /><a href='#f465' class='c014'><sup>[465]</sup></a> -The further statement of Theophrastos, that the Warm -was the efficient cause and the Cold the material or -passive,<a id='r466' /><a href='#f466' class='c014'><sup>[466]</sup></a> is intelligible enough if we identify them with -the Limit and the Unlimited respectively; but is not, -of course, to be regarded as historical.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We have seen that Simplicius, with the poem of -Parmenides before him, corrects Aristotle by substituting -Light and Darkness for Fire and Earth, and in this he -is amply borne out by the fragments which he quotes. -Parmenides himself calls one “form” Light, Flame, and -Fire, and the other Night, and we have now to consider -whether these can be identified with the Pythagorean -Limit and Unlimited. We have seen good reason to -believe (<a href='#sec58'>§ 58</a>) that the idea of the world breathing -belonged to the earliest form of Pythagoreanism, and -there can be no difficulty in identifying this “boundless -breath” with Darkness, which stands very well -for the Unlimited. “Air” or mist was always regarded -as the dark element.<a id='r467' /><a href='#f467' class='c014'><sup>[467]</sup></a> And that which gives definiteness -<span class='pageno' id='Page_215'>215</span>to the vague darkness is certainly light or fire, -and this may account for the prominence given to that -element by Hippasos.<a id='r468' /><a href='#f468' class='c014'><sup>[468]</sup></a> We may probably conclude, -then, that the Pythagorean distinction between the -Limit and the Unlimited, which we shall have to -consider later (Chap. VII.), made its first appearance in -this crude form. If, on the other hand, we identify -darkness with the Limit, and light with the Unlimited, -as most critics do, we get into insuperable difficulties.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The heavenly bodies.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec92'></a>92. We must now look at the general cosmical view -expounded in the Second Part of the poem. The -fragments are scanty, and the doxographical tradition -hard to interpret; but enough remains to show that -here, too, we are on Pythagorean ground. All -discussion of the subject must start from the following -important passage of Aetios:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Parmenides held that there were crowns crossing one -another<a id='r469' /><a href='#f469' class='c014'><sup>[469]</sup></a> and encircling one another, formed of the rare and -the dense element respectively, and that between these there -were other mixed crowns made up of light and darkness. -That which surrounds them all was solid like a wall, and -under it is a fiery crown. That which is in the middle of all -the crowns is also solid, and surrounded in turn by a fiery -circle. The central circle of the mixed crowns is the cause -of movement and becoming to all the rest. He calls it -“the goddess who directs their course,” “the Holder of Lots,” -and “Necessity.” Aet. ii. 7. 1 (R. P. 126).</p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>The “crowns.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec93'></a>93. The first thing we have to observe is that it is -quite unjustifiable to regard these “crowns” as spheres. -The word στέφαναι can mean “rims” or “brims” or -anything of that sort, but it seems incredible that it -<span class='pageno' id='Page_216'>216</span>should be used of spheres. It does not appear, either, -that the solid circle which surrounds all the crowns is -to be regarded as spherical. The expression “like a -wall” would be highly inappropriate in that case. -We seem, then, to be face to face with something of the -same kind as the “wheels” of Anaximander, and -it is obviously quite likely that Pythagoras should -have taken this theory from him. Nor is evidence -altogether lacking that the Pythagoreans did regard the -heavenly bodies in this way. In Plato’s Myth of Er, -which is certainly Pythagorean in its general character, -we do not hear of spheres, but of the “lips” of -concentric whorls fitted into one another like a nest of -boxes.<a id='r470' /><a href='#f470' class='c014'><sup>[470]</sup></a> Even in the <cite>Timaeus</cite> there are no spheres, -but bands or strips crossing each other at an angle.<a id='r471' /><a href='#f471' class='c014'><sup>[471]</sup></a> -Lastly, in the Homeric <cite>Hymn to Ares</cite>, which seems to -have been composed under Pythagorean influence, the -word used for the orbit of the planet is ἄντυξ, which -must mean “rim.”<a id='r472' /><a href='#f472' class='c014'><sup>[472]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The fact is, there is really no evidence that any one -ever adopted the theory of celestial spheres at all, till -Aristotle turned the geometrical construction which -Eudoxos had set up as a hypothesis “to save -appearances” (σῴζειν τὰ φαινόμενα ) into real things.<a id='r473' /><a href='#f473' class='c014'><sup>[473]</sup></a> -<span class='pageno' id='Page_217'>217</span>From that time forward we hear a great deal about -spheres, and it was natural that later writers should -attribute them to the Pythagoreans; but there is no -occasion to do violence to the language of Parmenides by -turning his “crowns” into anything of the sort. At this -date, spheres would not have served to explain anything -that could not be explained more simply without them.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We are next told that these “crowns” encircle one -another or are folded over one another, and that they -are made of the rare and the dense element. We -also learn that between them are “mixed crowns” -made up of light and darkness. Now it is to be -observed, in the first place, that light and darkness are -exactly the same thing as the rare and the dense, and -it looks as if there was some confusion here. It may -be doubted whether these statements are based on -anything else than fr. <a href='#Pa.12'>12</a>, which might certainly be -interpreted to mean that between the crowns of fire -there were crowns of night with a portion of fire in -them. That may be right; but I think it is rather -more natural to understand the passage as saying that -the narrower circles are surrounded by wider circles of -night, each with its portion of fire rushing in the midst -of it. These last words would then be a simple -repetition of the statement that the narrower circles -are filled with unmixed fire,<a id='r474' /><a href='#f474' class='c014'><sup>[474]</sup></a> and we should have a -<span class='pageno' id='Page_218'>218</span>fairly exact reproduction of the planetary system of -Anaximander. It is, however, possible, though I think -less likely, that Parmenides represented the space -between the circles as occupied by similar rings in -which the fire and darkness were mixed instead of -having the fire enclosed in the darkness.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The goddess.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec94'></a>94. “In the middle of those,” says Parmenides, -“is the goddess who steers the course of all things.” -Aetios, that is, Theophrastos, explains this to mean in -the middle of the mixed crowns, while Simplicius -declares that it means in the middle of all the crowns, -that is to say, in the centre of the world.<a id='r475' /><a href='#f475' class='c014'><sup>[475]</sup></a> It is not -very likely that either of them had anything better to -go upon than the words of Parmenides just quoted, and -these are ambiguous. Simplicius, as is clear from the -language he uses, identified this goddess with the -Pythagorean Hestia or central fire, while Theophrastos -could not do this, because he knew and stated that -Parmenides held the earth to be round and in the -centre of the world.<a id='r476' /><a href='#f476' class='c014'><sup>[476]</sup></a> In this very passage we are told -that what is in the middle of all the crowns is solid. -The data furnished by Theophrastos, in fact, exclude -the identification of the goddess with the central fire -altogether. We cannot say that what is in the middle -of <em>all</em> the crowns is solid, and that under it there is -again a fiery crown.<a id='r477' /><a href='#f477' class='c014'><sup>[477]</sup></a> Nor does it seem fitting to -<span class='pageno' id='Page_219'>219</span>relegate a goddess to the middle of a solid spherical -earth. We must try to find a place for her elsewhere.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We are further told by Aetios that this goddess was -called Ananke and the “Holder of Lots.”<a id='r478' /><a href='#f478' class='c014'><sup>[478]</sup></a> We know -already that she steers the course of all things, that is, -that she regulates the motions of the celestial crowns. -Simplicius adds, unfortunately without quoting the -actual words, that she sends souls at one time from -the light to the unseen world, at another from the -unseen world to the light.<a id='r479' /><a href='#f479' class='c014'><sup>[479]</sup></a> It would be difficult to -describe more exactly what the goddess does in the -Myth of Er, and so here once more we seem to be on -Pythagorean ground. It is to be noticed further that -in fr. <a href='#Pa.10'>10</a> we read how Ananke took the heavens and -compelled them to hold fast the fixed courses of the -stars, and that in fr. <a href='#Pa.12'>12</a> we are told that she is the -beginner of all pairing and birth. Lastly, in fr. <a href='#Pa.13'>13</a> we -hear that she created Eros first of all the gods. Modern -parallels are dangerous, but it is not really going much -beyond what is written to say that this Eros is the Will -to Live, which leads to successive rebirths of the soul. -So we shall find that in Empedokles it is an ancient -<span class='pageno' id='Page_220'>220</span>oracle or decree of Ananke that causes the gods to fall -and become incarnate in a cycle of births.<a id='r480' /><a href='#f480' class='c014'><sup>[480]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>We should, then, be more certain of the place which -this goddess occupies in the universe if we could be -quite sure where Ananke is in the Myth of Er. -Without, however, raising that vexed question, we may -lay down with some confidence that, according to -Theophrastos, she occupied a position midway between -the earth and the heavens. Whether we believe in the -“mixed crowns” or not makes no difference in this -respect; for the statement of Aetios that she was in -the middle of the mixed crowns undoubtedly implies -that she was in that region. Now she is identified with -one of the crowns in a somewhat confused passage of -Cicero,<a id='r481' /><a href='#f481' class='c014'><sup>[481]</sup></a> and we have seen above (p. <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>) that the whole -theory of wheels or crowns was probably suggested by -the Milky Way. It seems to me, therefore, that we -must think of the Milky Way as a crown intermediate -between the crowns of the Sun and the Moon, and this -agrees very well with the prominent way in which it is -mentioned in fr. <a href='#Pa.11'>11</a>. It is better not to be too -positive about the other details of the system, though it -is interesting to notice that according to some it was -Pythagoras, and according to others Parmenides, who -discovered the identity of the evening and morning -star. That fits in exactly with our general view.<a id='r482' /><a href='#f482' class='c014'><sup>[482]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_221'>221</span>Besides all this, it is quite certain that Parmenides -went on to describe how the other gods were born and -how they fell, an idea which we know to be Orphic, -and which may well have been Pythagorean. We -shall come to it again in Empedokles. In Plato’s -<cite>Symposium</cite>, Agathon couples Parmenides with Hesiod -as a narrator of ancient deeds of violence committed -by the gods.<a id='r483' /><a href='#f483' class='c014'><sup>[483]</sup></a> If Parmenides was expounding the -Pythagorean theology, all this is just what we should -expect; but it seems hopeless to explain it on any -of the other theories which have been advanced on -the purpose of the Way of Belief. Such things do -not follow naturally from the ordinary view of the -world, and we have no reason to suppose that -Herakleitos expounded his views of the upward and -downward path of the soul in this form. He certainly -did hold that the guardian spirits entered into human -bodies; but the whole point of his theory was that he -gave a naturalistic rather than a theological account -of the process. Still less can we think it probable -that Parmenides made up these stories himself in -order to show what the popular view of the world -really implied if properly formulated. We must ask, -I think, that any theory on the subject shall account -for what was evidently no inconsiderable portion of -the poem.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Physiology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec95'></a>95. In describing the views of his contemporaries, -Parmenides was obliged, as we see from the fragments, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_222'>222</span>to say a good deal about physiological matters. Like -everything else, man was composed of the warm and -the cold, and death was caused by the removal of the -warm. Some curious views with regard to generation -were also stated. In the first place, males came from -the right side and females from the left. Women had -more of the warm and men of the cold, a view which -we shall find Empedokles contradicting.<a id='r484' /><a href='#f484' class='c014'><sup>[484]</sup></a> It is just -the proportion of the warm and cold in men that -determines the character of their thought, so that -even corpses, from which the warm has been removed, -retain a perception of what is cold and dark.<a id='r485' /><a href='#f485' class='c014'><sup>[485]</sup></a> These -fragments of information do not tell us much when -taken by themselves; but they connect themselves -in a most interesting way with the history of medicine, -and point to the fact that one of its leading schools -stood in close relation with the Pythagorean Society. -Even before the days of Pythagoras, we know that -Kroton was famous for its doctors. A Krotoniate, -Demokedes, was court physician to the Persian king, -and married Milo the Pythagorean’s daughter.<a id='r486' /><a href='#f486' class='c014'><sup>[486]</sup></a> We -also know the name of a very distinguished medical -writer who lived at Kroton in the days between -Pythagoras and Parmenides, and the few facts we are -told about him enable us to regard the physiological -views described by Parmenides not as isolated -curiosities, but as landmarks by means of which we -can trace the origin and growth of one of the most -influential of medical theories, that which explains -health as a balance of opposites.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Alkmaion of Kroton.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_223'>223</span><a id='sec96'></a>96. Aristotle tells us that Alkmaion of Kroton<a id='r487' /><a href='#f487' class='c014'><sup>[487]</sup></a> was -a young man in the old age of Pythagoras. He does -not actually say, as later writers do, that he was a -Pythagorean, though he points out that he seems -either to have derived his theory of opposites from -the Pythagoreans or they theirs from him.<a id='r488' /><a href='#f488' class='c014'><sup>[488]</sup></a> In any -case, he was intimately connected with the society, -as is proved by one of the scanty fragments of his -book. It began as follows: “Alkmaion of Kroton, -son of Peirithous, spoke these words to Brotinos and -Leon and Bathyllos. As to things invisible and things -mortal, the gods have certainty; but, so far as men -may infer ...”<a id='r489' /><a href='#f489' class='c014'><sup>[489]</sup></a> The quotation unfortunately ends -in this abrupt way, but we learn two things from it. -In the first place, Alkmaion possessed that reserve -which marks all the best Greek medical writers; and -in the second place, he dedicated his work to the heads -of the Pythagorean Society.<a id='r490' /><a href='#f490' class='c014'><sup>[490]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Alkmaion’s chief importance in the history of -philosophy really lies in the fact that he is the founder -of empirical psychology.<a id='r491' /><a href='#f491' class='c014'><sup>[491]</sup></a> It is certain that he regarded -<span class='pageno' id='Page_224'>224</span>the brain as the common sensorium, an important -discovery which Hippokrates and Plato adopted from -him, though Empedokles, Aristotle, and the Stoics -reverted to the more primitive view that the heart -performs this function. There is no reason to doubt -that he made this discovery by anatomical means. -We have some authority for saying that he practised -dissection, and, though the nerves were not yet recognised -as such, it was known that there were certain -“passages” which might be prevented from communicating -sensations to the brain by lesions.<a id='r492' /><a href='#f492' class='c014'><sup>[492]</sup></a> He -also distinguished between sensation and understanding, -though we have no means of knowing exactly where he -drew the line between them. His theories of the special -senses are of great interest. We find in him already, -what is characteristic of Greek theories of vision as a -whole, the attempt to combine the view of vision as an act -proceeding from the eye with that which attributes it to -an image reflected in the eye. He knew the importance of -air for the sense of hearing, though he called it the void, a -thoroughly Pythagorean touch. With regard to the other -senses, our information is more scanty, but sufficient to -show that he treated the subject systematically.<a id='r493' /><a href='#f493' class='c014'><sup>[493]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>His astronomy seems surprisingly crude for one -who stood in close relations with the Pythagoreans. -We are told that he adopted Anaximenes’ theory -of the sun and Herakleitos’s explanation of eclipses.<a id='r494' /><a href='#f494' class='c014'><sup>[494]</sup></a> -<span class='pageno' id='Page_225'>225</span>It is all the more remarkable that he is credited with -originating the idea, which it required all Plato’s -authority to get accepted later, that the planets have -an orbital motion in the opposite direction to the -diurnal revolution of the heavens.<a id='r495' /><a href='#f495' class='c014'><sup>[495]</sup></a> This, if true, -probably stood in close connexion with his saying -that soul was immortal because it resembled immortal -things, and was always in motion like the heavenly -bodies.<a id='r496' /><a href='#f496' class='c014'><sup>[496]</sup></a> He seems, in fact, to be the real author -of the curious view which Plato put into the mouth -of the Pythagorean Timaios, that the soul has circles -revolving just as the heavens and the planets do. This -too seems to be the explanation of his further statement -that man dies because he cannot join the -beginning to the end.<a id='r497' /><a href='#f497' class='c014'><sup>[497]</sup></a> The orbits of the heavenly -bodies always come full circle, but the circles in the -head may fail to complete themselves. This new -version of the parallelism between the microcosm -and the macrocosm would be perfectly natural for -Alkmaion, though it is, of course, no more than a -playful fancy to Plato.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Alkmaion’s theory of health as “isonomy” is at -once that which most clearly connects him with earlier -inquirers like Anaximander, and also that which had -the greatest influence on the subsequent development -of philosophy. He observed, to begin with, that “most -things human were two,” and by this he meant that -man was made up of the hot and the cold, the moist and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_226'>226</span>the dry, and the rest of the opposites.<a id='r498' /><a href='#f498' class='c014'><sup>[498]</sup></a> Disease was -just the “monarchy” of any one of these—the same -thing that Anaximander had called “injustice”—while -health was the establishment in the body of -a free government with equal laws.<a id='r499' /><a href='#f499' class='c014'><sup>[499]</sup></a> This was the -leading doctrine of the Sicilian school of medicine -which came into existence not long after, and we -shall have to consider in the sequel its influence -on the development of Pythagoreanism. Taken along -with the theory of “pores,”<a id='r500' /><a href='#f500' class='c014'><sup>[500]</sup></a> it is of the greatest -importance for later science.</p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f422'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r422'>422</a>. Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. 111). For the foundation of Elea, see Herod. i. -165 sqq. It was on the coast of Lucania, south of Poseidonia (Paestum).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f423'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r423'>423</a>. Diog. ix. 23 (R. P. 111). Cf. Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Rhein. Mus.</cite></span> xxxi. p. 34; and -Jacoby, pp. 231 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f424'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r424'>424</a>. Plato, <cite>Parm.</cite> 127 b (R. P. 111 d). There are, as Zeller has shown, a -certain number of anachronisms in Plato, but there is not one of this -character. In the first place, we have exact figures as to the ages of -Parmenides and Zeno, which imply that the latter was twenty-five years -younger than the former, not forty as Apollodoros said. In the second -place, Plato refers to this meeting in two other places (<cite>Tht.</cite> 183 e 7 and -<cite>Soph.</cite> 217 c 5), which do not seem to be mere references to the dialogue -entitled <cite>Parmenides</cite>. No parallel can be quoted for an anachronism so -glaring and deliberate as this would be. E. Meyer (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alterth.</cite></span> iv. -§ 509, <cite>Anm.</cite>) also regards the meeting of Sokrates and Parmenides as -historical.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f425'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r425'>425</a>. Plut. <cite>Per.</cite> 4, 3. See below, p. 358, <a href='#f852'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 852</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f426'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r426'>426</a>. See above, Chap. II. p. 140, <a href='#f308'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 308</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f427'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r427'>427</a>. Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. III), reading Ἀμεινίᾳ Διοχαίτα with Diels (<cite>Hermes</cite>, -xxxv. p. 197). Sotion, in his <cite>Successions</cite>, separated Parmenides from -Xenophanes and associated him with the Pythagoreans (<cite>Dox.</cite> pp. 146, -148, 166).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f428'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r428'>428</a>. Strabo, vi. 1, p. 252 (p. 195, <a href='#f430'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 430</ins></a>); Ceb. <cite>Tab.</cite> 2 (R. P. 111 c). This -Kebes is not the Kebes of the <cite>Phaedo</cite>; but he certainly lived some time -before Lucian, who speaks of him as a well-known writer. A Cynic of -the name is mentioned by Athenaios (156 d). The statements of Strabo -are of the greatest value; for they are based upon historians now lost.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f429'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r429'>429</a>. O. Kern in <cite>Arch.</cite> iii. pp. 173 sqq. We know too little, however, of -the apocalyptic poems of the sixth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> to be sure of the details. -All we can say is that Parmenides has taken the form of his poem from -some such source. See Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Ueber die poetischen Vorbilder des -Parmenides”</span> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Berl. Sitzb.</cite></span> 1896), and the Introduction to his <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Parmenides -Lehrgedicht</cite></span>, pp. 9 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f430'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r430'>430</a>. Diog. ix. 23 (R. P. 111). Plut. <cite>adv. Col.</cite> 1226 a, Παρμενίδης δὲ τὴν -ἑαυτοῦ πατρίδα διεκόσμησε νόμοις ἀρίστοις, ὥστε τὰς ἀρχὰς καθ’ ἕκαστον -ἐνιαυτὸν ἐξορκοῦν τοὺς πολίτας ἐμμενεῖν τοῖς Παρμενίδου νόμοις. Strabo, vi. -1. p. 252, (Ἐλέαν) ἐξ ἧς Παρμενίδης καὶ Ζήνων ἐγένοντο ἄνδρες Πυθαγόρειοι. -δοκεῖ δέ μοι καὶ δι’ ἐκείνους καὶ ἔτι πρότερον εὐνομηθῆναι.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f431'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r431'>431</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> 144, 25 (R. P. 117). Simplicius, of course, had the -library of the Academy at his command. Diels notes, however, that -Proclus seems to have used a different MS.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f432'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r432'>432</a>. For these see Hesiod, <cite>Theog.</cite> 748.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f433'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r433'>433</a>. See below, p. 211, <a href='#f459'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 459</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f434'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r434'>434</a>. I read μῦθος as in the parallel passage fr. 8 <i>ad init.</i> Diels’s interpretation -of θυμὸς ὁδοῖο (the MS. reading here) as <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>ein lebendiger Weg</i></span> does -not convince me, and the confusion of the two words is fairly common.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f435'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r435'>435</a>. I read with Zeller (p. 558 n. 1, Eng. trans. p. 584, n. 1) τὸ γὰρ αὐτὸ -νοεῖν ἔστιν τε καὶ εἶναι. Apart from the philosophical anachronism of -making Parmenides say that “thought and being are the same,” it is a -grammatical anachronism to make him use the infinitive (with or without -the article) as the subject of a sentence. On the other hand, he does use -the active infinitive after εἶναι in the construction where we usually use a -passive infinitive (Monro, <cite>H. Gr.</cite> § 231 <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>sub fin.</i></span>). Cf. fr. 4, εἰσὶ νοῆσαι, “are -for thinking,” <i>i.e.</i> “can be thought.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f436'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r436'>436</a>. The construction here is the same as that explained in the last note. -It is surprising that good scholars should acquiesce in the translation of τὸ -λέγειν τε νοεῖν τε as “to say and think this.” Then ἔστι γὰρ εἶναι means -“it can be,” not “being is,” and the last phrase should be construed -οὐκ ἔστι μηδὲν (εἶναι).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f437'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r437'>437</a>. I construe οἷς νενόμισται τὸ πέλειν τε καὶ οὐκ εἶναι ταὐτὸν καὶ οὐ -ταὐτόν. The subject of the infinitives πέλειν καὶ οὐκ εἶναι is the <em>it</em>, which -has to be supplied also with ἔστιν and οὐκ ἔστιν. This way of taking the -words makes it unnecessary to believe that Parmenides said (τὸ) οὐκ εἶναι -instead of (τὸ) μὴ εἶναι for “not-being.” There is no difference between -πέλειν and εἶναι except in rhythmical value.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f438'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r438'>438</a>. I take πάντων as neuter and understand παλίντροπος κέλευθος as -equivalent to the ὁδὸς ἄνω κάτω of Herakleitos. I do not think it has -anything to do with the παλίντονος (or παλίντροπος) ἁρμονίη. See Chap. -III. p. 150, <a href='#f347'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 347</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f439'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r439'>439</a>. I still prefer to read ἔστι γὰρ οὐλομελές with Plutarch (<cite>adv. Col.</cite> -1114 c). Proklos (<cite>in Parm.</cite> 1152, 24) also read οὐλομελές. Simplicius, -who has μουνογενές here, calls the One of Parmenides ὁλομελές elsewhere -(<cite>Phys.</cite> p. 137, 15). The reading of [Plut.] <cite>Strom.</cite> 5, μοῦνον μουνογενές -helps to explain the confusion. We have only to suppose that the letters -μ, ν, γ were written above the line in the Academy copy of Parmenides -by some one who had <cite>Tim.</cite> 31 b 3 in mind.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f440'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r440'>440</a>. Diels formerly read ἔκ πη ἐόντος, “from that which in any way is”; -but he has now reverted to the reading ἔκ μὴ ἐόντος, supposing that the -other horn of the dilemma has dropped out. In any case, “nothing but -what is not can arise from what is not” gives a perfectly good sense.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f441'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r441'>441</a>. For the difficulties which have been felt about μᾶλλον here, see Diels’s -note. If the word is to be pressed, his interpretation is admissible; but it -seems to me that this is simply an instance of “polar expression.” It is -true that it is only the case of there being less of what is in one place than -another that is important for the divisibility of the One; but if there is less -in one place, there is more in another <em>than in that place</em>. The Greek -language tends to express these implications. The position of the relative -clause makes a difficulty for us, but hardly for a Greek.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f442'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r442'>442</a>. Simplicius certainly read μὴ ἐὸν δ’ ἂν παντὸς ἐδεῖτο, which is metrically -impossible. I followed Bergk in deleting μή, and have interpreted -with Zeller. So too Diels.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f443'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r443'>443</a>. For the construction of ἔστι νοεῖν, see above, p. 198, <a href='#f435'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 435</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f444'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r444'>444</a>. As Diels rightly points out, the Ionic φατίζειν is equivalent to -ὀνομάζειν. The meaning, I think, is this. We may name things as we -choose, but there can be no thought corresponding to a name that is not -the name of something real.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f445'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r445'>445</a>. This is Zeller’s way of taking the words, and still seems to me the -best. Diels objects that ἑτέρην would be required, and renders <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>nur eine -derselben, das sei unerlaubt</i></span>, giving the words to the “mortals.” This -seems to me to involve more serious grammatical difficulties than the use -of μίαν for τὴν ἑτέραν, which is quite legitimate when there is an emphasis -on the number. Aristotle must have taken it so; for he infers that one of -the μορφαί is to be identified with τὸ ἐόν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f446'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r446'>446</a>. Note the curious echo of <cite>Il.</cite> v. 214. Empedokles has it too (v. 154). -It appears to be a joke, made in the spirit of Xenophanes, when it was -first discovered that the moon shone by reflected light.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f447'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r447'>447</a>. This fragment of the theory of knowledge which was expounded in -the second part of the poem of Parmenides must be taken in connexion with -what we are told by Theophrastos in the “Fragment on Sensation” (<cite>Dox.</cite> -p. 499; cf. p. 222). It appears from this that he said the character of -men’s thought depended upon the preponderance of the light or the dark -element in their bodies. They are wise when the light element predominates, -and foolish when the dark gets the upper hand.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f448'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r448'>448</a>. This is a fragment of Parmenides’s embryology. Diels’s fr. 18 is a -retranslation of the Latin hexameters of Caelius Aurelianus quoted -R. P. 127 a.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f449'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r449'>449</a>. Arist. <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Γ, 1. 298 b 21, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ (οἱ περὶ Μέλισσόν τε καὶ -Παρμενίδην) διὰ τὸ μηθὲν μὲν ἄλλο παρὰ τὴν τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐσίαν -ὑπολαμβάνειν εἶναι κ.τ.λ. So too Eudemos, in the first book of his Physics -(<i>ap.</i> Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 133, 25), said of Parmenides: τὸ μὲν οὖν κοινὸν οὐκ ἂν -λέγοι. οὔτε γὰρ ἐζητεῖτό πω τὰ τοιαῦτα, ἀλλ’ ὕστερον ἐκ τῶν λόγων -προήλθεν, οὔτε ἐπιδέχοιτο ἂν ἂ τῷ ὅντι ἐπιλέγει. πῶς γὰρ ἔσται τοῦτο -“μέσσοθεν ἰσοπαλὲς” καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα; τῷ δὲ οὐρανῷ (the world) σχεδὸν -πάντες ἐφαρμόσουσιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι λόγοι The Neoplatonists, of course, saw -in the One the νοητὸς κόσμος, and Simplicius calls the sphere a “mythical -figment.” See especially Baümker, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Die Einheit des Parmenideischen -Seiendes”</span> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Jahrb. f. kl. Phil.</cite></span> 1886, pp. 541 sqq.), and <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Das Problem der -Materie</cite></span>, pp. 50 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f450'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r450'>450</a>. We must not render τὸ ἐόν by “Being,” <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>das Sein</i></span> or <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>l’être</i></span>. It is -“what is,” <i><span lang="de" xml:lang="de">das Seiende</span>, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">ce qui est</span></i>. As to (τὸ) εἶναι it does not, and could -not, occur. Cf. p. 198, <a href='#f435'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 435</ins></a>, above.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f451'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r451'>451</a>. See above, p. 198, <a href='#f437'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 437</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f452'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r452'>452</a>. Plato, <cite>Tht.</cite> 180 e 3, ὡς ἕν τε πάντα ἐστὶ καὶ ἕστηκεν αὐτὸ ἐν αὐτῷ -οὐκ ἔχον χώραν ἐν ᾗ κινεῖται.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f453'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r453'>453</a>. Arist. <cite>de Caelo</cite>, Γ, 1. 298 b 21, quoted above, p. 203, <a href='#f449'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 449</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f454'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r454'>454</a>. <cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, pp. 180 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f455'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r455'>455</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 b 31 (R. P. 121 a). Aristotle’s way of putting the matter -is due to his interpretation of fr. <a href='#Pa.8'>8</a>, 54, which he took to mean that one of -the two “forms” was to be identified with τὸ ὄν and the other with τὸ μὴ -ὄν. Cf. <cite>Gen. Corr.</cite> Α, 3. 318 b 6, ὥσπερ Παρμενίδης λέγει δύο, τὸ ὂν καὶ τὸ -μὴ ὂν εἶναι φάσκων. This last sentence shows clearly that when Aristotle -says Παρμενίδης, he means what we should call “Parmenides.” He cannot -have supposed that Parmenides admitted the being of τὸ μὴ ὄν in any sense -whatever (cf. Plato, <cite>Soph.</cite> 241 d 5).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f456'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r456'>456</a>. Theophr. <cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 6 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 482; R. P. 121 a), κατὰ δόξαν δὲ τῶν -πολλῶν εἰς τὸ γένεσιν ἀποδοῦναι τῶν φαινομένων δύο ποιῶν τὰς ἀρχάς. For -Alexander cf. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 38, 24.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f457'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r457'>457</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 39, 10 (R. P. 121 b). Gomperz, <cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, -p. 180. E. Meyer says (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alterth.</cite></span> iv. § 510, <cite>Anm.</cite>): “How -too can we think that a teacher of wisdom taught his disciples nothing -as to the way in which they must take the existing sensible world, even -if only as a deception?” This implies (1) that the distinction between -Appearance and Reality had been clearly grasped; and (2) that a certain -hypothetical and relative truth was allowed to Appearance. These are -palpable anachronisms. Both views are Platonic, and they were not held -even by Plato in his earlier writings.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f458'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r458'>458</a>. Cf. frs. <a href='#Pa.4'>4</a> and <a href='#Pa.6'>6</a>, especially the words αἵπερ ὁδοὶ μοῦναι διζήσιός εἰσι -νοῆσαι. The third way, that of Herakleitos, is only added as an afterthought—αὐτὰρ -ἔπειτ’ ἀπὸ τῆς κ.τ.λ.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f459'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r459'>459</a>. I read χρῆν δοκιμῶσ’ εἶναι in fr. 1, 32 with Diels, but I do not feel -able to accept his rendering <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>wie man bei gründlicher Durchforschung -annehmen müsste, dass sich jenes Scheinwesen verhalte</i></span>. We must, I -think, take χρῆν δοκιμῶσαι (<i>i.e.</i> δοκιμάσαι) quite strictly, and χρῆν with the -infinitive means “ought to have.” The most natural subject for the -infinitive in that case is βροτούς, while εἶναι will be dependent on δοκιμῶσαι, -and have τὰ δοκοῦντα for its subject. This way of taking the words is -confirmed by fr. <a href='#Pa.8'>8</a>, 54, τῶν μίαν οὐ χρεών ἐστιν, if taken as I have taken -it with Zeller. See above, p. 201, <a href='#f445'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 445</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f460'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r460'>460</a>. The view that the opinions contained in the Second Part are those of -others, and are not given as true in any sense whatsoever, is that of Diels. -The objections of Wilamowitz (<cite>Hermes</cite>, xxxiv. pp. 203 sqq.) do not appear -to me cogent. If we interpret him rightly, Parmenides never says that -“this hypothetical explanation is ... better than that of any one else” -(E. Meyer, iv. § 510, <cite>Anm.</cite>). What he does say is that it is untrue -altogether. It <a id='corr212.26'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='seem'>seems</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_212.26'><ins class='correction' title='seem'>seems</ins></a></span> to me, however, that Diels has weakened his case by -refusing to identify the theory here expounded with Pythagoreanism, and -referring it mainly to Herakleitos. Herakleitos was emphatically <em>not</em> a -dualist, and I cannot see that to represent him as one is even what Diels -calls a “caricature” of his theory. Caricatures must have some point -of likeness. It is still more surprising to me that Patin, who makes -ἓν πάντα εἶναι the corner-stone of Herakleiteanism, should adopt this view -(<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Parmenides im Kampfe gegen Heraklit</cite></span>, 1899). E. Meyer (<i>loc. cit.</i>) -seems to think that the fact of Zeno’s having modified the δόξα of -Parmenides in an Empedoklean sense (Diog. ix. 29; R. P. 140) proves -that it was supposed to have some sort of truth. On the contrary, it would -only show, if true, that Zeno had other opponents to face than Parmenides -had.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f461'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r461'>461</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 b 34, θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρόν; <cite>Phys.</cite> Α, 5. 188 a 20; <cite>Gen. -Corr.</cite> Α, 3. 318 b 6; Β, 3. 330 b 14.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f462'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r462'>462</a>. <cite>Phys.</cite> Α, 5. 188 a 21, ταῦτα δὲ (θερμὸν καὶ ψυχρὸν) προσαγορεύει πῦρ -καὶ γῆν; <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 b 34, οἷον πῦρ καὶ γῆν λέγων. Cf. Theophr. <cite>Phys. -Op.</cite> fr. 6 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 482; R. P. 121 a). [Plut.] <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 5 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 581), -λέγει δὲ τῆν γῆν τοῦ πυκνοῦ καταρρυέντος ἀέρος γεγονέναι. Zeller, p. 568, -n. 1 (Eng. trans. p. 593, n. 2).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f463'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r463'>463</a>. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 25, 15, ὡς Παρμενίδης ἐν τοῖς πρὸς δόξαν πῦρ καὶ γῆν -(ἢ μᾶλλον φῶς καὶ σκότος).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f464'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r464'>464</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 b 35, τούτων δὲ κατὰ μὲν τὸ ὂν τὸ θερμὸν τάττει, θάτερον -δὲ κατὰ τὸ μὴ ὄν. See above, p. 208, <a href='#f457'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 457</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f465'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r465'>465</a>. See below, Chap. VII. <a href='#sec147'>§ 147</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f466'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r466'>466</a>. Theophr. <cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 6 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 482; R. P. 121 a), followed by -the doxographers.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f467'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r467'>467</a>. Note the identification of the dense element with “air” in [Plut.] -<cite>Strom.</cite>, quoted p. 213, <a href='#f462'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 462</ins></a>; and for the identification of this “air” -with “mist and darkness,” cf. Chap. I. <a href='#sec27'>§ 27</a>, and Chap. V. <a href='#sec107'>§ 107</a>. It is to -be observed further that Plato puts this last identification into the mouth of -a Pythagorean (<cite>Tim.</cite> 52 d).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f468'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r468'>468</a>. See above, p. <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f469'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r469'>469</a>. It seems most likely that ἐπαλλήλους here means “crossing one -another,” as the Milky Way crosses the Zodiac. The term ἐπάλληλος is -opposed to παράλληλος.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f470'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r470'>470</a>. <cite>Rep.</cite> x. 616 d 5, καθάπερ οἱ κάδοι οἱ εἰς ἀλλήλους ἁρμόττοντες; e 1, -κύκλους ἄνωθεν τὰ χείλη φαίνοντας (σφονδύλους).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f471'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r471'>471</a>. <cite>Tim.</cite> 36 b 6, ταύτην οὖν τὴν σύστασιν πᾶσαν διπλῆν κατὰ μῆκος σχίσας, -μέσην πρὸς μέσην ἐκατέραν ἀλλήλαις οἷον χεῖ (the letter Χ) προσβαλὼν -κατέκαμψεν εἰς ἓν κύκλῳ.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f472'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r472'>472</a>. <cite>Hymn to Ares</cite>, 6:</p> - -<div class='lg-container-b c015'> - <div class='linegroup'> - <div class='group'> - <div class='line in18'>πυραυγέα κύκλον ἑλίσσων</div> - <div class='line'>αἰθέρος ἑπταπόροις ἐνὶ τείρεσιν, ἔνθα σε πῶλοι</div> - <div class='line'>ζαφλεγέες τριτάτης ὑπὲρ ἄντυγος αἰὲν ἔχουσι.</div> - </div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c006'>So, in allusion to an essentially Pythagorean view, Proclus says to the -planet Venus (h. iv. 17):</p> - -<div class='lg-container-b c015'> - <div class='linegroup'> - <div class='group'> - <div class='line'>εἴτε καὶ ἑπτὰ κύκλων ὑπὲρ ἄντυγας αἰθέρα ναίεις.</div> - </div> - </div> -</div> - -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f473'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r473'>473</a>. On the concentric spheres of Eudoxos, see Dreyer, <cite>Planetary Systems</cite>, -chap. iv. It is unfortunate that the account of Plato’s astronomy given in -this work is wholly inadequate, owing to the writer’s excessive reliance on -Boeckh, who was led by evidence now generally regarded as untrustworthy -to attribute all the astronomy of the Academy to their predecessors, and -especially to Philolaos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f474'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r474'>474</a>. Such a repetition (παλινδρομία) is characteristic of all Greek style, but -the repetition at the end of the period generally adds a new touch to the -statement at the opening. The new touch is here given in the word -ἵεται. I do not press this interpretation, but it seems to me much the -simplest.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f475'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r475'>475</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 34, 14 (R. P. 125 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f476'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r476'>476</a>. Diog. ix. 21 (R. P. 126 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f477'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r477'>477</a>. I do not discuss the interpretation of περὶ ὃ πάλιν πυρώδης which -Diels gave in <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Parmenides Lehrgedicht</cite></span>, p. 104, and which is adopted in -R. P. 162 a, as it is now virtually retracted. In the second edition of his -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vorsokratiker</cite></span> (p. 111) he reads καὶ τὸ μεσαίτατον πασῶν στερεόν, <ὑφ’ ᾧ> -πάλιν πυρώδης [sc. στεφάνη]. That is a flat contradiction. It is of interest -to observe that Mr. Adam also gets into the interior of the earth in his -interpretation of the Myth of Er. It is instructive, too, because it shows -that we are really dealing with the same order of ideas. The most heroic -attempt to save the central fire for Pythagoras was my own hypothesis of -an annular earth (1st ed. p. 203). This has met with well-deserved -ridicule; but all the same it is the only possible solution on these lines. -We shall see in Chap. VII. that the central fire belongs to the later -development of Pythagoreanism.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f478'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r478'>478</a>. R. P. 126, where Fülleborn’s ingenious emendation κλῃδοῦχον for -κληροῦχον is tacitly adopted. This is based upon the view that Aetios (or -Theophrastos) was thinking of the goddess that keeps the keys in the -Proem (fr. <a href='#Pa.1'>1</a>, <a href='#Pa.14'>14</a>). I now think that the κλῆροι of the Myth of Er -are the true explanation of the name. Philo uses the term κληροῦχος -θεός.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f479'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r479'>479</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 39, 19, καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς πέμπειν ποτὲ μὲν ἐκ τοῦ ἐμφανοῦς -εἰς τὸ ἀειδές (<i>i.e.</i> ἀιδές), ποτὲ δὲ ἀνάπαλίν φησιν. We should probably -connect this with the statement of Diog. ix. 22 (R. P. 127) that men arose -from the sun (reading ἡλίου with the MSS. for the conjecture ἰλύος in the -Basel edition).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f480'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r480'>480</a>. Empedokles, fr. <a href='#Em.115'>115</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f481'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r481'>481</a>. Cicero, <cite>de nat. D.</cite> i. 11, 28: <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“Nam Parmenides quidem commenticium -quiddam coronae simile efficit</span> (στεφάνην <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">appellat), continente ardore lucis -orbem, qui cingat caelum, quem appellat deum.”</span> We may connect with -this the statement of Aetios, ii. 20, 8, τὸν ἥλιον καὶ τὴν σελήνην ἐκ τοῦ -γαλαξίου κύκλου ἀποκριθῆναι.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f482'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r482'>482</a>. Diog. ix. 23, καὶ δοκεῖ (Παρμενίδης) πρῶτος πεφωρακέναι τὸν αὐτὸν -εἶναι Ἕσπερον καὶ Φωσφόρον, ὥς φησι Φαβωρῖνος ἐν πέμπτῳ Ἀπομνημονευμάτων· -οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόραν. If, as Achilles says, the poet Ibykos of Rhegion -had anticipated Parmenides in announcing this discovery, that is to be -explained by the fact that Rhegion had become the chief seat of the -Pythagorean school.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f483'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r483'>483</a>. Plato, <cite>Symp.</cite> 195 c 1. It is implied that these παλαιὰ πράγματα were -πολλὰ καὶ βίαια, including such things as ἐκτομαί and δεσμοί. The -Epicurean criticism of all this is partially preserved in Philodemos, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de -pietate</cite></span>, p. 68, Gomperz; and Cicero, <cite>de nat. D.</cite> i. 28 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 534; R. P. -126 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f484'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r484'>484</a>. For all this, see R. P. 127 a, with Arist. <cite>de Part. An.</cite> Β, 2. 648 a 28; -<cite>de Gen. An.</cite> Δ, 1. 765 b 19.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f485'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r485'>485</a>. Theophr. <cite>de sens.</cite> 3, 4 (R. P. 129).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f486'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r486'>486</a>. Herod. iii. 131, 137.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f487'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r487'>487</a>. On Alkmaion, see especially Wachtler, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>De Alcmaeone Crotoniata</cite></span> -(Leipzig, 1896).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f488'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r488'>488</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 a 27 (R. P. 66). In a 30 Diels reads, with -great probability, ἐγένετο τὴν ἡλικίαν <νέος> ἐπὶ γέροντι Πυθαγόρᾳ. Cf. -Iambl. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 104, where Alkmaion is mentioned among the συγχρονίσαντες -καὶ μαθητεύσαντες τῷ Πυθαγόρᾳ πρεσβύτῃ νέοι.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f489'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r489'>489</a>. Ἀλκμαίων Κρωτωνιήτης τάδε ἔλεξε Πειρίθου υἱὸς Βροτίνῳ καὶ Λέοντι καὶ -Βαθύλλῳ· περὶ τῶν ἀφανέων, περὶ τῶν θνητῶν, σαφήνειαν μὲν θεοὶ ἔχοντι, ὡς -δὲ ἀνθρώποις τεκμαίρεσθαι καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. The fact that this is not written -in conventional Doric, like the forged Pythagorean books, is a strong proof -of genuineness.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f490'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r490'>490</a>. Brotinos (not Brontinos) is variously described as the son-in-law or -father-in-law of Pythagoras. Leon is one of the Metapontines in the -catalogue of Iamblichos (Diels, <cite>Vors.</cite> p. 268), and Bathyllos is presumably -the Poseidoniate Bathylaos also mentioned there.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f491'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r491'>491</a>. Everything bearing on the early history of this subject is brought -together and discussed in Prof. Beare’s <cite>Greek Theories of Elementary -Cognition</cite>, to which I must refer the reader for all details.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f492'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r492'>492</a>. Theophr. <cite>de sens.</cite> 26 (Beare, p. 252, n. 1). Our authority for the -dissections of Alkmaion is only Chalcidius, but he gets his information on -such matters from far older sources. The πόροι and the inference from -lesions are vouched for by Theophrastos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f493'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r493'>493</a>. The details will be found in Beare, pp. 11 sqq. (vision), pp. 93 sqq. -(hearing), pp. 131 sqq. (smell), pp. 180 sqq. (touch), pp. 160 sqq. (taste).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f494'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r494'>494</a>. Aet. ii. 22, 4, πλατὺν εἶναι τὸν ἥλιον; 29, 3, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ σκαφοειδοῦς -στροφὴν καὶ τὰς περικλίσεις (ἐκλείπειν τὴν σελήνην).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f495'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r495'>495</a>. Aet. ii. 16, 2, (τῶν μαθηματικῶν τινες) τοὺς πλανήτας τοῖς ἀπλάνεσιν -ἀπὸ δυσμῶν ἐπ’ ἀνατολὰς ἀντιφέρεσθαι. τούτῳ δὲ συνομολογεῖ καὶ -Ἀλκμαίων.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f496'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r496'>496</a>. Arist. <cite>de An.</cite> Α, 2. 405 a 30 (R. P. 66 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f497'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r497'>497</a>. Arist. <cite>Probl.</cite> 17, 3. 916 a 33, τοὺς ἀνθρώπους φησὶν Ἀλκμαίων διὰ -τοῦτο ἀπόλλυσθαι, ὅτι οὐ δύνανται τὴν ἀρχὴν τῷ τέλει προσάψαι.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f498'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r498'>498</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 a 27 (R. P. 66).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f499'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r499'>499</a>. Aet. v. 30, 1, Ἀλκμαίων τῆς μὲν ὑγιείας εἶναι συνεκτικὴν τὴν ἰσονομίαν -τῶν δυνάμεων, ὑγροῦ, ξηροῦ, ψυχροῦ, θερμοῦ, πικροῦ, γλυκέος, καὶ -τῶν λοιπῶν, τὴν δ’ ἐν αὐτοῖς μοναρχίαν νόσου ποιητικήν· φθοροποιὸν γὰρ -ἐκατέρου μοναρχίαν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f500'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r500'>500</a>. My colleague, Dr. Fraser Harris, points out to me that Alkmaion’s -πόροι may have been a better guess than he knew. The nerve-fibres, when -magnified 1000 diameters, “sometimes appear to have a clear centre, as if -the fibrils were tubular.”—Schäfer, <cite>Essentials of Physiology</cite> (7th edition), -p. 132.</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_227'>227</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER V <br /> EMPEDOKLES OF AKRAGAS</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Pluralism.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec97'></a>97. The belief that all things are one was common -to the philosophers we have hitherto studied; but -now Parmenides has shown that, if this one thing -really <em>is</em>, we must give up the idea that it can take -different forms. The senses, which present to us a -world of change and multiplicity, are deceitful. From -this there was no escape; the time was still to come -when men would seek the unity of the world in -something which, from its very nature, the senses could -never perceive.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We find, accordingly, that from the time of -Parmenides to that of Plato, all thinkers in whose -hands philosophy made real progress abandoned the -monistic hypothesis. Those who still held by it -adopted a critical attitude, and confined themselves -to a defence of the theory of Parmenides against the -new views. Others taught the doctrine of Herakleitos -in an exaggerated form; some continued to expound -the systems of the early Milesians. This, of course, -showed want of insight; but even those thinkers who -saw that Parmenides could not be left unanswered, -were by no means equal to their predecessors in power -and thoroughness. The corporealist hypothesis had -<span class='pageno' id='Page_228'>228</span>proved itself unable to bear the weight of a monistic -structure; but a thorough-going pluralism such as the -atomic theory might have some value, if not as a -final explanation of the world, yet at least as an -intelligible view of a part of it. Any pluralism, on -the other hand, which, like that of Empedokles and -Anaxagoras, stops short of the atoms, will achieve no -permanent result, however many may be the brilliant -<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><em>aperçus</em></span> which it embodies. It will remain an attempt -to reconcile two things that cannot be reconciled, -and may always, therefore, be developed into contradictions -and paradoxes.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Date of Empedokles.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec98'></a>98. Empedokles was a citizen of Akragas in -Sicily, and his father’s name, according to the best -accounts, was Meton.<a id='r501' /><a href='#f501' class='c014'><sup>[501]</sup></a> His grandfather, also called -Empedokles, had won a victory in the horse-race at -Olympia in Ol. LXXI. (496-95 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>),<a id='r502' /><a href='#f502' class='c014'><sup>[502]</sup></a> and Apollodoros -fixed the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span> of Empedokles himself in Ol. LXXXIV. -1 (444-43 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>). This is the date of the foundation of -Thourioi; and it appears from the quotation in -Diogenes that the almost contemporary biographer, -Glaukos of Rhegion,<a id='r503' /><a href='#f503' class='c014'><sup>[503]</sup></a> said Empedokles visited the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_229'>229</span>new city shortly after its foundation. But we are -in no way bound to believe that he was just forty years -old at the time of the event in his life which can -most easily be dated. That is the assumption made -by Apollodoros; but there are reasons for thinking -that his date is too late by some eight or ten years.<a id='r504' /><a href='#f504' class='c014'><sup>[504]</sup></a> -It is, indeed, most likely that Empedokles did not go -to Thourioi till after his banishment from Akragas, -and he may well have been more than forty years old -when that happened. All, therefore, we can be said -to know of his date is, that his grandfather was still -alive in 496 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>; that he himself was active at -Akragas after 472, the date of Theron’s death; and -that he died later than 444.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Even these indications are enough to show that -he must have been a boy in the reign of Theron, -the tyrant who co-operated with Gelon of Syracuse -in the repulse of the Carthaginians from Himera. -His son and successor, Thrasydaios, was a man of -another stamp. Before his accession to the throne -of Akragas, he had ruled in his father’s name at -Himera, and completely estranged the affections of its -inhabitants. Theron died in 472 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, and Thrasydaios -at once displayed all the vices and follies usual in -the second holder of a usurped dominion. After a -disastrous war with Hieron of Syracuse, he was driven -out; and Akragas enjoyed a free government till it -<span class='pageno' id='Page_230'>230</span>fell before the Carthaginians more than half a century -later.<a id='r505' /><a href='#f505' class='c014'><sup>[505]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Empedokles as a politician.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec99'></a>99. In the political events of the next few years, -Empedokles certainly played an important part; but -our information on the subject is of a very curious -kind. The Sicilian historian Timaios told one or -two stories about him, which are obviously genuine -traditions picked up about a hundred and fifty years -afterwards; but, like all popular traditions, they are -a little confused. The picturesque incidents are -remembered, but the essential parts of the story -are dropped. Still, we may be thankful that the -“collector of old wives’ tales,”<a id='r506' /><a href='#f506' class='c014'><sup>[506]</sup></a> as sneering critics -called him, has enabled us to measure the historical -importance of Empedokles for ourselves by showing -us how he was pictured by the great-grandchildren -of his contemporaries.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We read, then,<a id='r507' /><a href='#f507' class='c014'><sup>[507]</sup></a> that once he was invited to sup -with one of the “rulers.” Tradition delights in such -vague titles. “Supper was well advanced, but no -wine was brought in. The rest of the company said -nothing, but Empedokles was righteously indignant, and -insisted on wine being served. The host, however, -said he was waiting for the serjeant of the Council. -When that official arrived, he was appointed ruler of -the feast. The host, of course, appointed him. -Thereupon he began to give hints of an incipient -tyranny. He ordered the company either to drink or -have the wine poured over their heads. At the time, -Empedokles said nothing; but next day he led both -<span class='pageno' id='Page_231'>231</span>of them before the court, and had them condemned -and put to death—both the man who asked him to -supper, and the ruler of the feast.<a id='r508' /><a href='#f508' class='c014'><sup>[508]</sup></a> This was the -beginning of his political career.” The next tale is -that Empedokles prevented the Council from granting -his friend Akron a piece of land for a family sepulchre -on the ground of his eminence in medicine, and -supported his objection by a punning epigram.<a id='r509' /><a href='#f509' class='c014'><sup>[509]</sup></a> -Lastly, he broke up the assembly of the Thousand—perhaps -some oligarchical association or club.<a id='r510' /><a href='#f510' class='c014'><sup>[510]</sup></a> It -may have been for this that he was offered the kingship, -which Aristotle tells us he refused.<a id='r511' /><a href='#f511' class='c014'><sup>[511]</sup></a> At any -rate, we see that Empedokles was the great democratic -leader at Akragas in those days, though we have no -clear knowledge of what he did.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Empedokles as a religious teacher.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec100'></a>100. But there is another side to his public character -which Timaios found it hard to reconcile with his -political views. He claimed to be a god, and to -receive the homage of his fellow-citizens in that capacity. -The truth is, Empedokles was not a mere statesman; -he had a good deal of the “medicine-man” about him. -According to Satyros,<a id='r512' /><a href='#f512' class='c014'><sup>[512]</sup></a> Gorgias affirmed that he had -<span class='pageno' id='Page_232'>232</span>been present when his master was performing sorceries. -We can see what this means from the fragments of -the <cite>Purifications</cite>. Empedokles was a preacher of the -new religion which sought to secure release from the -“wheel of birth” by purity and abstinence; but it is -not quite certain to which form of it he adhered. On -the one hand, Orphicism seems to have been strong at -Akragas in the days of Theron, and there are even -some verbal coincidences between the poems of -Empedokles and the Orphicising Odes which Pindar -addressed to that prince.<a id='r513' /><a href='#f513' class='c014'><sup>[513]</sup></a> There are also some points -of similarity between the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Rhapsodic Theogony</cite></span>, as we -know it from Damaskios, and certain fragments of -Empedokles, though the importance of these has been -exaggerated.<a id='r514' /><a href='#f514' class='c014'><sup>[514]</sup></a> On the other hand, there is no reason -to doubt the statement of Ammonios that fr. <a href='#Em.134'>134</a> -refers to Apollo;<a id='r515' /><a href='#f515' class='c014'><sup>[515]</sup></a> and, if that is so, it would point -to his having been an adherent of the Ionic form of -the mystic doctrine, as we have seen (<a href='#sec39'>§ 39</a>) that -Pythagoras was. Further, Timaios already knew the -story that he had been expelled from the Pythagorean -Order for “stealing discourses,”<a id='r516' /><a href='#f516' class='c014'><sup>[516]</sup></a> and it is probable on -the whole that fr. <a href='#Em.129'>129</a> refers to Pythagoras.<a id='r517' /><a href='#f517' class='c014'><sup>[517]</sup></a> It would -be very hazardous to dogmatise on this subject; but -it seems most likely that Empedokles had been -influenced by Orphic ideas in his youth, and that, in -later life, he preached a form of Pythagoreanism which -<span class='pageno' id='Page_233'>233</span>was not considered orthodox by the heads of the -Society. In any case, it seems far more probable that -his political and scientific activity belong to the same -period of his life, and that he only became a wandering -prophet after his banishment, than that his scientific -work belonged to his later days when he was a solitary -exile.<a id='r518' /><a href='#f518' class='c014'><sup>[518]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>We hear of a number of marvels performed by -Empedokles, which are for the most part nothing but -inferences from his writings. Timaios told how he -weakened the force of the etesian winds by hanging -bags of asses’ skins on the trees to catch them. He -had certainly said, in his exaggerated way, that the -knowledge of science as taught by him would enable -his disciples to control the winds (fr. <a href='#Em.111'>111</a>); and this, -along with the fabled windbags of Aiolos, is enough -to account for the tale.<a id='r519' /><a href='#f519' class='c014'><sup>[519]</sup></a> We are also told how he -brought back to life a woman who had been breathless -and pulseless for thirty days. The verse where he -asserts that his teaching will enable Pausanias to bring -the dead back from Hades (fr. <a href='#Em.111'>111</a>) shows how this -story may have arisen.<a id='r520' /><a href='#f520' class='c014'><sup>[520]</sup></a> Again, we hear that he -sweetened the pestilent marsh between Selinous and -the sea by diverting the rivers Hypsas and Selinos -into it. We know from coins that this purification -<span class='pageno' id='Page_234'>234</span>of the marshes actually took place, but we may doubt -whether it was attributed to Empedokles till a later -time.<a id='r521' /><a href='#f521' class='c014'><sup>[521]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Rhetoric and medicine.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec101'></a>101. Aristotle said that Empedokles was the -inventor of Rhetoric;<a id='r522' /><a href='#f522' class='c014'><sup>[522]</sup></a> and Galen made him the founder -of the Italian school of Medicine, which he puts on a -level with those of Kos and Knidos.<a id='r523' /><a href='#f523' class='c014'><sup>[523]</sup></a> Both these -statements must be considered in connexion with his -political and scientific activity. It seems to be certain -that Gorgias was his disciple in physics and medicine, -and some of the peculiarities which marked his style -are to be found in the poems of Empedokles.<a id='r524' /><a href='#f524' class='c014'><sup>[524]</sup></a> It is -not to be supposed, of course, that Empedokles wrote -a formal treatise on Rhetoric; but it is in every way -probable, and in accordance with his character, that -the speeches, of which he must have made many, were -marked by that euphuism which Gorgias introduced -to Athens at a later date, and which gave rise to the -idea of an artistic prose. The influence of Empedokles -on the development of medicine was, however, far -more important, as it affected not only medicine itself, -but through it, the whole tendency of scientific and -philosophical thinking. It has been said that -Empedokles had no successors,<a id='r525' /><a href='#f525' class='c014'><sup>[525]</sup></a> and the remark is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_235'>235</span>true if we confine ourselves strictly to philosophy. -On the other hand, the medical school which he -founded was still living in the days of Plato, and it -had considerable influence on him, and still more on -Aristotle.<a id='r526' /><a href='#f526' class='c014'><sup>[526]</sup></a> Its fundamental doctrine was the identification -of the four elements with the hot and the cold, -the moist and the dry. It also held that we breathe -through all the pores of the body, and that the act of -respiration is closely connected with the motion of the -blood. The heart, not the brain, was regarded as the -organ of consciousness.<a id='r527' /><a href='#f527' class='c014'><sup>[527]</sup></a> A more external characteristic -of the medicine taught by the followers of -Empedokles is that they still clung to ideas of a -magical nature. A protest against this by a member -of the Koan school has been preserved. He refers to -them as “magicians and purifiers and charlatans and -quacks, who profess to be very religious.”<a id='r528' /><a href='#f528' class='c014'><sup>[528]</sup></a> Though -there is some truth in this, it hardly does justice to -the great advances in physiology that were due to the -Sicilian school.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Relation to predecessors.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec102'></a>102. In the biography of Empedokles, we hear -very little of his theory of nature. The only hints we -get are some statements about his teachers. Alkidamas, -who had good opportunities of knowing, made him a -<span class='pageno' id='Page_236'>236</span>fellow-student of Zeno under Parmenides. That is -both possible and likely. Theophrastos too made him -a follower and imitator of Parmenides. But the further -statement that he had “heard” Pythagoras cannot be -right. Probably Alkidamas said “Pythagoreans.”<a id='r529' /><a href='#f529' class='c014'><sup>[529]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Some writers hold that certain parts of the system -of Empedokles, in particular the theory of pores and -effluvia (<a href='#sec118'>§ 118</a>), which do not seem to follow very -naturally from his own principles, were due to the -influence of Leukippos.<a id='r530' /><a href='#f530' class='c014'><sup>[530]</sup></a> This, however, is not necessarily -the case. We know that Alkmaion (<a href='#sec96'>§ 96</a>) spoke -of “pores” in connexion with sensation, and it may -equally well be from him that Empedokles got the -theory. It may be added that this is more in -accordance with the history of certain other physiological -views which are common to Alkmaion and -the later Ionian philosophers. We can generally see -that those reached Ionia through the medical school -which Empedokles founded.<a id='r531' /><a href='#f531' class='c014'><sup>[531]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Death.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec103'></a>103. We are told that Empedokles leapt into the -crater of Etna that he might be deemed a god. This -appears to be a malicious version<a id='r532' /><a href='#f532' class='c014'><sup>[532]</sup></a> of a tale set on foot -by his adherents that he had been snatched up to -heaven in the night.<a id='r533' /><a href='#f533' class='c014'><sup>[533]</sup></a> Both stories would easily get -<span class='pageno' id='Page_237'>237</span>accepted; for there was no local tradition. Empedokles -did not die in Sicily, but in the Peloponnese, or, -perhaps, at Thourioi. He had gone to Olympia to -have his religious poem recited to the Hellenes; his -enemies were able to prevent his return, and he was -seen in Sicily no more.<a id='r534' /><a href='#f534' class='c014'><sup>[534]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Writings.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec104'></a>104. Empedokles was the second philosopher to -expound his system in verse, if we leave the satirist -Xenophanes out of account. He was also the last -among the Greeks; for the forged Pythagorean poems -may be neglected.<a id='r535' /><a href='#f535' class='c014'><sup>[535]</sup></a> Lucretius imitates Empedokles -in this, just as Empedokles imitated Parmenides. Of -course, the poetical imagery creates a difficulty for the -interpreter; but it would be wrong to make too much -of it. It cannot be said that it is harder to extract -the philosophical kernel from the verses of Empedokles -than from the prose of Herakleitos.</p> - -<p class='c002'>There is some divergence of opinion as to the -poetical merit of Empedokles. The panegyric of -Lucretius is well known.<a id='r536' /><a href='#f536' class='c014'><sup>[536]</sup></a> Aristotle says in one place -that Empedokles and Homer have nothing in common -but the metre; in another, that Empedokles was “most -Homeric.”<a id='r537' /><a href='#f537' class='c014'><sup>[537]</sup></a> To my mind, there can be no question -that he was a genuine poet, far more so than Parmenides. -No one doubts nowadays that Lucretius was one, and -Empedokles really resembles him very closely.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The remains.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_238'>238</span><a id='sec105'></a>105. We have more abundant remains of Empedokles -than of any other early Greek philosopher. -If we may trust our manuscripts of Diogenes and of -Souidas, the librarians of Alexandria estimated the <cite>Poem -on Nature</cite> and the <cite>Purifications</cite> together as 5000 verses, -of which about 2000 belonged to the former work.<a id='r538' /><a href='#f538' class='c014'><sup>[538]</sup></a> -Diels gives about 350 verses and parts of verses from -the cosmological poem, or not a fifth of the whole. It -is important to remember that, even in this favourable -instance, so much has been lost. Besides the two -poems, the Alexandrian scholars possessed a prose work -of 600 lines on medicine ascribed to Empedokles. -The tragedies and other poems which were sometimes -attributed to him seem really to belong to a younger -writer of the same name, who is said by Souidas to -have been his grandson.<a id='r539' /><a href='#f539' class='c014'><sup>[539]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>I give the remains as they are arranged by -Diels:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div>(1)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And do thou give ear, Pausanias, son of Anchitos the wise!</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.2'></a>(2)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For straitened are the powers that are spread over their -bodily parts, and many are the woes that burst in on them and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_239'>239</span>blunt the edge of their careful thoughts! They behold but a -brief span of a life that is no life,<a id='r540' /><a href='#f540' class='c014'><sup>[540]</sup></a> and, doomed to swift -death, are borne up and fly off like smoke. Each is -convinced of that alone which he had chanced upon as he is <span class='linenum'>5</span> -hurried to and fro, and idly boasts he has found the whole. -So hardly can these things be seen by the eyes or heard by -the ears of men, so hardly grasped by their mind! Thou,<a id='r541' /><a href='#f541' class='c014'><sup>[541]</sup></a> -then, since thou hast found thy way hither, shalt learn no -more than mortal mind hath power. R. P. 163.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(3)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>... to keep within thy dumb heart.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.4'></a>(4)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But, O ye gods, turn aside from my tongue the madness -of those men.<a id='r542' /><a href='#f542' class='c014'><sup>[542]</sup></a> Hallow my lips and make a pure stream flow -from them! And thee, much-wooed, white-armed Virgin -Muse, do I beseech that I may hear what is lawful for the -children of a day! Speed me on my way from the abode of <span class='linenum'>5</span> -Holiness and drive my willing car! Thee shall no garlands of -glory and honour at the hands of mortals constrain to lift them -from the ground, on condition of speaking in thy pride beyond -that which is lawful and right, and so to gain a seat upon -the heights of wisdom.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Go to now, consider with all thy powers in what way each -thing is clear. Hold not thy sight in greater credit as <span class='linenum'>10</span> -compared with thy hearing, nor value thy resounding ear -above the clear instructions of thy tongue;<a id='r543' /><a href='#f543' class='c014'><sup>[543]</sup></a> and do not -withhold thy confidence in any of thy other bodily parts by -which there is an opening for understanding,<a id='r544' /><a href='#f544' class='c014'><sup>[544]</sup></a> but consider -everything in the way it is clear. R. P. 163.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_240'>240</span><a id='Em.5'></a>(5)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But it is ever the way of low minds to disbelieve their -betters. Do thou learn as the sure testimonies of my Muse -bid thee, dividing the argument in thy heart.<a id='r545' /><a href='#f545' class='c014'><sup>[545]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.6'></a>(6)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Hear first the four roots of all things: shining Zeus, life-bringing -Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis whose tear-drops are a -well-spring to mortals. R. P. 164.<a id='r546' /><a href='#f546' class='c014'><sup>[546]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(7)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>... uncreated.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.8'></a>(8)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And I shall tell thee another thing. There is no coming -into being of aught that perishes, nor any end for it in baneful -death; but only mingling and change of what has been -mingled. Coming into being is but a name given to these by -men. R. P. 165.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.9'></a>(9)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But, when the elements have been mingled in the fashion -of a man and come to the light of day, or in the fashion of the -race of wild beasts or plants or birds, then men say that these -come into being; and when they are separated, they call -that woeful death. They call it not aright; but I too follow <span class='linenum'>5</span> -the custom, and call it so myself.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(10)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Avenging death.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.11'></a><a id='Em.12'></a>(11, 12)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Fools!—for they have no far-reaching thoughts—who -deem that what before was not comes into being, or that -<span class='pageno' id='Page_241'>241</span>aught can perish and be utterly destroyed. For it cannot be -that aught can arise from what in no way is, and it is -impossible and unheard of that what <em>is</em> should perish; for it <span class='linenum'>5</span> -will always <em>be</em>, wherever one may keep putting it. R. P. 165 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.13'></a>(13)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And in the All there is naught empty and naught too full.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(14)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>In the All there is naught empty. Whence, then, could -aught come to increase it?</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(15)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>A man who is wise in such matters would never surmise in -his heart that as long as mortals live what they call their life, -so long they are, and suffer good and ill; while before they -were formed and after they have been dissolved they are just -nothing at all. R. P. 165 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.16'></a>(16)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For of a truth they (Strife and Love) were aforetime and -shall be; nor ever, methinks, will boundless time be emptied -of that pair. R. P. 166 c.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.17'></a>(17)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At one time it grew to be -one only out of many; at another, it divided up to be many -instead of one. There is a double becoming of perishable -things and a double passing away. The coming together of -all things brings one generation into being and destroys -it; the other grows up and is scattered as things become <span class='linenum'>5</span> -divided. And these things never cease continually changing -places, at one time all uniting in one through Love, at another -each borne in different directions by the repulsion of Strife. -Thus, as far as it is their nature to grow into one out of many, -and to become many once more when the one is parted <span class='linenum'>10</span> -asunder, so far they come into being and their life abides not. -But, inasmuch as they never cease changing their places -continually, so far they are ever immovable as they go round -the circle of existence.</p> - -<hr class='c019' /> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_242'>242</span>But come, hearken to my words, for it is learning that -increaseth wisdom. As I said before, when I declared the <span class='linenum'>15</span> -heads of my discourse, I shall tell thee a twofold tale. At -one time it grew together to be one only out of many, at -another it parted asunder so as to be many instead of one;—Fire -and Water and Earth and the mighty height of -Air; dread Strife, too, apart from these, of equal weight to -each, and Love among them, equal in length and breadth. <span class='linenum'>20</span> -Her do thou contemplate with thy mind, nor sit with dazed -eyes. It is she that is known as being implanted in the frame -of mortals. It is she that makes them have thoughts of love -and work the works of peace. They call her by the names of -Joy and Aphrodite. Her has no mortal yet marked moving <span class='linenum'>25</span> -round among them,<a id='r547' /><a href='#f547' class='c014'><sup>[547]</sup></a> but do thou attend to the undeceitful -ordering of my discourse.</p> - -<p class='c002'>For all these are equal and alike in age, yet each has a -different prerogative and its own peculiar nature. And nothing <span class='linenum'>30</span> -comes into being besides these, nor do they pass away; for, -if they had been passing away continually, they would not be -now, and what could increase this All and whence could it -come? How, too, could it perish, since no place is empty of -these things? They are what they are; but, running through -one another, they become now this, now that,<a id='r548' /><a href='#f548' class='c014'><sup>[548]</sup></a> and like things <span class='linenum'>35</span> -evermore. R. P. 166.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(18)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Love.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(19)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Clinging Love.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(20)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>This (the contest of Love and Strife) is manifest in the -mass of mortal limbs. At one time all the limbs that are the -body’s portion are brought together by Love in blooming life’s -high season; at another, severed by cruel Strife, they wander <span class='linenum'>5</span> -each alone by the breakers of life’s sea. It is the same with -<span class='pageno' id='Page_243'>243</span>plants and the fish that make their homes in the waters, with -the beasts that have their lairs on the hills and the seabirds -that sail on wings. R. P. 173 d.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.21'></a>(21)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Come now, look at the things that bear witness to my -earlier discourse, if so be that there was any shortcoming as -to their form in the earlier list. Behold the sun, everywhere -bright and warm, and all the immortal things that are bathed in -heat and bright radiance.<a id='r549' /><a href='#f549' class='c014'><sup>[549]</sup></a> Behold the rain, everywhere dark <span class='linenum'>5</span> -and cold; and from the earth issue forth things close-pressed -and solid. When they are in strife all these are different -in form and separated; but they come together in love, -and are desired by one another.</p> - -<p class='c002'>For out of these have sprung all things that were and are -and shall be—trees and men and women, beasts and birds <span class='linenum'>10</span> -and the fishes that dwell in the waters, yea, and the gods that -live long lives and are exalted in honour. R. P. 166 i.</p> - -<p class='c002'>For these things are what they are; but, running through -one another, they take different shapes—so much does mixture -change them. R. P. 166 g.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.22'></a>(22)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For all of these—sun, earth, sky, and sea—are at one with -all their parts that are cast far and wide from them in mortal -things. And even so all things that are more adapted for -mixture are like to one another and united in love by -Aphrodite. Those things, again, that differ most in origin, <span class='linenum'>5</span> -mixture and the forms imprinted on each, are most hostile, -being altogether unaccustomed to unite and very sorry by -the bidding of Strife, since it hath wrought their birth.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.23'></a>(23)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Just as when painters are elaborating temple-offerings, men -whom wisdom hath well taught their art,—they, when they -have taken pigments of many colours with their hands, mix -<span class='pageno' id='Page_244'>244</span>them in due proportion, more of some and less of others, and -from them produce shapes like unto all things, making trees <span class='linenum'>5</span> -and men and women, beasts and birds and fishes that dwell in -the waters, yea, and gods, that live long lives, and are exalted -in honour,—so let not the error prevail over thy mind,<a id='r550' /><a href='#f550' class='c014'><sup>[550]</sup></a> that -there is any other source of all the perishable creatures that -appear in countless numbers. Know this for sure, for thou <span class='linenum'>10</span> -hast heard the tale from a goddess.<a id='r551' /><a href='#f551' class='c014'><sup>[551]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(24)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Stepping from summit to summit, not to travel only one -path to the end....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(25)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>What is right may well be said even twice.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(26)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For they prevail in turn as the circle comes round, and -pass into one another, and grow great in their appointed turn. -R. P. 166 c.</p> - -<p class='c002'>They are what they are; but, running through one another, -they become men and the tribes of beasts. At one time they -are all brought together into one order by Love; at another, <span class='linenum'>5</span> -they are carried each in different directions by the repulsion -of Strife, till they grow once more into one and are wholly -subdued. Thus in so far as they are wont to grow into one -out of many, and again divided become more than one, so -far they come into being, and their life is not lasting; but in <span class='linenum'>10</span> -so far as they never cease changing continually, so far are -they evermore, immovable in the circle.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.27'></a>(27)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>There are distinguished neither the swift limbs of the sun, -no, nor the shaggy earth in its might, nor the sea,—so fast -was the god bound in the close covering of Harmony, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_245'>245</span>spherical and round, rejoicing in his circular solitude.<a id='r552' /><a href='#f552' class='c014'><sup>[552]</sup></a> -R. P. 167.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(27<i>a</i>)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>There is no discord and no unseemly strife in his limbs.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.28'></a>(28)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But he was equal on every side and quite without end, -spherical and round, rejoicing in his circular solitude.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(29)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Two branches do not spring from his back, he has no feet, -no swift knees, no fruitful parts; but he was spherical and -equal on every side.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.30'></a>(30, 31)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But, when Strife was grown great in the limbs of the god -and sprang forth to claim his prerogatives, in the fulness of -the alternate time set for them by the mighty oath, ... for -all the limbs of the god in turn quaked. R. P. 167.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(32)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The joint binds two things.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(33)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Even as when fig juice rivets and binds white milk....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.34'></a>(34)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Cementing<a id='r553' /><a href='#f553' class='c014'><sup>[553]</sup></a> meal with water....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(35, 36)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But now I shall retrace my steps over the paths of song -that I have travelled before, drawing from my saying a new -saying. When Strife was fallen to the lowest depth of the -vortex, and Love had reached to the centre of the whirl, in it do -<span class='pageno' id='Page_246'>246</span>all things come together so as to be one only; not all at once, <span class='linenum'>5</span> -but coming together at their will each from different quarters; -and, as they mingled, countless tribes of mortal creatures were -scattered abroad. Yet many things remained unmixed, alternating -with the things that were being mixed, namely, all that -Strife not fallen yet retained; for it had not yet altogether retired <span class='linenum'>10</span> -perfectly from them to the outermost boundaries of the circle. -Some of it still remained within, and some had passed out from -the limbs of the All. But in proportion as it kept rushing -out, a soft, immortal stream of blameless Love kept running -in, and straightway those things became mortal which had -been immortal before, those things were mixed that had been <span class='linenum'>15</span> -unmixed, each changing its path. And, as they mingled, -countless tribes of mortal creatures were scattered abroad -endowed with all manner of forms, a wonder to behold. -R. P. 169.</p> - -<hr class='c019' /> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(37)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Earth increases its own mass, and Air swells the bulk of -Air.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.38'></a>(38)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Come, I shall now tell thee first of all the beginning of -the sun,<a id='r554' /><a href='#f554' class='c014'><sup>[554]</sup></a> and the sources from which have sprung all the -things we now behold, the earth and the billowy sea, the -damp vapour and the Titan air that binds his circle fast -round all things. R. P. 170 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(39)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>If the depths of the earth and the vast air were infinite, a -foolish saying which has been vainly dropped from the lips of -many mortals, though they have seen but a little of the -All....<a id='r555' /><a href='#f555' class='c014'><sup>[555]</sup></a> R. P. 103 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_247'>247</span>(40)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The sharp-darting sun and the gentle moon.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(41)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But (the sunlight) is gathered together and circles round -the mighty heavens.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.42'></a>(42)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And she cuts off his rays as he goes above her, and casts a -shadow on as much of the earth as is the breadth of the -pale-faced moon.<a id='r556' /><a href='#f556' class='c014'><sup>[556]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(43)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Even so the sunbeam, having struck the broad and mighty -circle of the moon, returns at once, running so as to reach -the sky.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(44)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It flashes back to Olympos with untroubled countenance. -R. P. 170 c.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(45, 46)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>There circles round the earth a round borrowed light, as -the nave of the wheel circles round the furthest (goal).</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(47)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For she gazes at the sacred circle of the lordly sun opposite.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.48'></a>(48)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It is the earth that makes night by coming before the lights.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(49)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>... of solitary, blind-eyed night.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(50)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And Iris bringeth wind or mighty rain from the sea.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(51)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>(Fire) swiftly rushing upwards....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_248'>248</span><a id='Em.52'></a>(52)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And many fires burn beneath the earth. R. P. 171 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.53'></a>(53)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For so as it ran, it met them at that time, though often -otherwise. R. P. 171 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(54)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But the air sank down upon the earth with its long roots. -R. P. 171 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(55)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Sea the sweat of the earth. R. P. 170 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(56)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Salt was solidified by the impact of the sun’s beams.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.57'></a>(57)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>On it (the earth) many heads sprung up without necks and -arms wandered bare and bereft of shoulders. Eyes strayed up -and down in want of foreheads. R. P. 173 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(58)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Solitary limbs wandered seeking for union.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.59'></a>(59)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But, as divinity was mingled still further with divinity, these -things joined together as each might chance, and many other -things besides them continually arose.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(60)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Shambling creatures with countless hands.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.61'></a>(61)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Many creatures with faces and breasts looking in different -directions were born; some, offspring of oxen with faces of -men, while others, again, arose as offspring of men with the -heads of oxen, and creatures in whom the nature of women -<span class='pageno' id='Page_249'>249</span>and men was mingled, furnished with sterile<a id='r557' /><a href='#f557' class='c014'><sup>[557]</sup></a> parts. <span class='linenum'>5</span> R. P. -173 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(62)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Come now, hear how the Fire as it was separated caused -the night-born shoots of men and tearful women to arise; -for my tale is not off the point nor uninformed. Whole-natured -forms first arose from the earth, having a portion -both of water and fire.<a id='r558' /><a href='#f558' class='c014'><sup>[558]</sup></a> These did the fire, desirous of <span class='linenum'>5</span> -reaching its like, send up, showing as yet neither the charming -form of women’s limbs, nor yet the voice and parts that are -proper to men. R. P. 173 c.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.63'></a>(63)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>... But the substance of (the child’s) limbs is divided -between them, part of it in men’s and part in women’s (body).</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.64'></a>(64)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And upon him came desire reminding him through sight.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.65'></a>(65)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>... And it was poured out in the pure parts; and when -it met with cold women arose from it.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(66)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The divided meadows of <a id='corr249.21'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='Aphhrodite'>Aphrodite</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_249.21'><ins class='correction' title='Aphhrodite'>Aphrodite</ins></a></span>.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(67)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For in its warmer part the womb brings forth males, and -that is why men are dark and more manly and shaggy.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.68'></a>(68)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>On the tenth day of the eighth month the white putrefaction -arises.<a id='r559' /><a href='#f559' class='c014'><sup>[559]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_250'>250</span>(69)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Double bearing.<a id='r560' /><a href='#f560' class='c014'><sup>[560]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(70)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Sheepskin.<a id='r561' /><a href='#f561' class='c014'><sup>[561]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(71)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But if thy assurance of these things was in any way -deficient as to how, out of Water and Earth and Air and Fire -mingled together, arose the forms and colours of all those -mortal things that have been fitted together by Aphrodite, and -so are now come into being.... <span class='linenum'>5</span></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(72)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>How tall trees and the fishes in the sea....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(73)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And even as at that time Kypris, preparing warmth,<a id='r562' /><a href='#f562' class='c014'><sup>[562]</sup></a> after -she had moistened the Earth in water, gave it to swift fire to -harden it.... R. P. 171.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(74)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Leading the songless tribe of fertile fish.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(75)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>All of those which are dense within and rare without, -having received a moisture of this kind at the hands of -Kypris....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.76'></a>(76)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>This thou mayest see in the heavy-backed shell-fish that -dwell in the sea, in sea-snails and the stony-skinned turtles. -In them thou mayest see that the earthy part dwells on the -uppermost surface.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(77-78)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It is the air that makes evergreen trees flourish with -abundance of fruit the whole year round.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_251'>251</span><a id='Em.79'></a>(79)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And so first of all tall olive trees bear eggs....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(80)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Wherefore pomegranates are late-born and apples succulent.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(81)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Wine is the water from the bark, putrefied in the wood.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.82'></a>(82)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Hair and leaves, and thick feathers of birds, and the scales -that grow on mighty limbs, are the same thing.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(83)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But the hair of hedgehogs is sharp-pointed and bristles -on their backs.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.84'></a>(84)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And even as when a man thinking to sally forth through a -stormy night, gets him ready a lantern, a flame of blazing -fire, fastening to it horn plates to keep out all manner of -winds, and they scatter the blast of the winds that blow, but -the light leaping out through them, shines across the threshold <span class='linenum'>5</span> -with unfailing beams, as much of it as is finer;<a id='r563' /><a href='#f563' class='c014'><sup>[563]</sup></a> even so did -she (Love) then entrap the elemental fire, the round pupil, -confined within membranes and delicate tissues, which are -pierced through and through with wondrous passages. They -keep out the deep water that surrounds the pupil, but they <span class='linenum'>10</span> -let through the fire, as much of it as is finer. R. P. 177 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(85)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But the gentle flame (of the eye) has but a scanty portion -of earth.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(86)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Out of these divine Aphrodite fashioned unwearying eyes.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_252'>252</span>(87)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Aphrodite fitting these together with rivets of love.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(88)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>One vision is produced by both the eyes.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.89'></a>(89)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Know that effluences flow from all things that have come -into being. R. P. 166 h.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(90)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>So sweet lays hold of sweet, and bitter rushes to bitter; -acid comes to acid, and warm couples with warm.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(91)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Water fits better into wine, but it will not (mingle) with oil. -R. P. 166 h.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(92)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Brass mixed with tin.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(93)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The berry of the blue elder is mingled with scarlet.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(94)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And the black colour at the bottom of a river arises from -the shadow. The same is seen in hollow caves.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(95)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Since they (the eyes) first grew together in the hands of -Kypris.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(96)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The kindly earth received in its broad funnels two parts of -gleaming Nestis out of the eight, and four of Hephaistos. So -arose white bones divinely fitted together by the cement of -proportion. R. P. 175.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(97)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The spine (was broken).</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(98)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And the earth, anchoring in the perfect harbours of -Aphrodite, meets with these in nearly equal proportions, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_253'>253</span>with Hephaistos and Water and gleaming Air—either a little -more of it, or less of them and more of it. From these did -blood arise and the manifold forms of flesh. R. P. 175 c.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.99'></a>(99)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The bell ... the fleshy sprout (of the ear).<a id='r564' /><a href='#f564' class='c014'><sup>[564]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.100'></a>(100)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Thus<a id='r565' /><a href='#f565' class='c014'><sup>[565]</sup></a> do all things draw breath and breathe it out again. -All have bloodless tubes of flesh extended over the surface of -their bodies; and at the mouths of these the outermost -surface of the skin is perforated all over with pores closely -packed together, so as to keep in the blood while a free <span class='linenum'>5</span> -passage is cut for the air to pass through. Then, when the -thin blood recedes from these, the bubbling air rushes in with -an impetuous surge; and when the blood runs back it is -breathed out again. Just as when a girl, playing with a -water-clock of shining brass, puts the orifice of the pipe upon <span class='linenum'>10</span> -her comely hand, and dips the water-clock into the yielding -mass of silvery water,—the stream does not then flow into the -vessel, but the bulk of the air inside, pressing upon the close-packed -perforations, keeps it out till she uncovers the compressed -stream; but then air escapes and an equal volume <span class='linenum'>15</span> -of water runs in,—just in the same way, when water occupies -the depths of the brazen vessel and the opening and passage -is stopped up by the human hand, the air outside, striving to -get in, holds the water back at the gates of the ill-sounding -neck, pressing upon its surface, till she lets go with her hand. <span class='linenum'>20</span> -Then, on the contrary, just in the opposite way to what -<span class='pageno' id='Page_254'>254</span>happened before, the wind rushes in and an equal volume of -water runs out to make room.<a id='r566' /><a href='#f566' class='c014'><sup>[566]</sup></a> Even so, when the thin blood -that surges through the limbs rushes backwards to the interior, -straightway the stream of air comes in with a rushing swell; <span class='linenum'>25</span> -but when the blood returns the air breathes out again in equal -quantity.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.101'></a>(101)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>(The dog) with its nostrils tracking out the fragments of the -beast’s limbs, and the breath from their feet that they leave -in the soft grass.<a id='r567' /><a href='#f567' class='c014'><sup>[567]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(102)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Thus all things have their share of breath and smell.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.103'></a>(103, 104)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Thus have all things thought by fortune’s will.... And -inasmuch as the rarest things came together in their fall.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.105'></a>(105)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>(The heart), dwelling in the sea of blood that runs in -opposite directions, where chiefly is what men call thought; -for the blood round the heart is the thought of men. R. P. -178 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.106'></a>(106)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For the wisdom of men grows according to what is before -them. R. P. 177.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.107'></a>(107)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For out of these are all things formed and fitted together, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_255'>255</span>and by these do men think and feel pleasure and pain. -R. P. 178.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(108)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And just so far as they grow to be different, so far do -different thoughts ever present themselves to their minds (in -dreams).<a id='r568' /><a href='#f568' class='c014'><sup>[568]</sup></a> R. P. 177 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(109)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For it is with earth that we see Earth, and Water with -water; by air we see bright Air, by fire destroying Fire. By -love do we see Love, and Hate by grievous hate. R. P. 176.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(110)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For if, supported on thy steadfast mind, thou wilt -contemplate these things with good intent and faultless care, -then shalt thou have all these things in abundance throughout -thy life, and thou shalt gain many others from them. For -these things grow of themselves into thy heart, where is each <span class='linenum'>5</span> -man’s true nature. But if thou strivest after things of another -kind, as is the way with men, ten thousand woes await thee -to blunt thy careful thoughts. Soon will these things desert -thee when the time comes round; for they long to return -once more to their own kind; for know that all things have <span class='linenum'>10</span> -wisdom and a share of thought.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.111'></a>(111)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And thou shalt learn all the drugs that are a defence -against ills and old age; since for thee alone will I accomplish -all this. Thou shalt arrest the violence of the weariless winds -that arise and sweep the earth; and again, when thou so -desirest, thou shalt bring back their blasts with a rush. Thou <span class='linenum'>5</span> -shalt cause for men a seasonable drought after the dark rains, -and again thou shalt change the summer drought for streams -that feed the trees as they pour down from the sky. Thou -shalt bring back from Hades the life of a dead man.</p> - -</div> - -<div><span class='pageno' id='Page_256'>256</span></div> -<div class='quote'> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div>PURIFICATIONS</div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(112)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Friends, that inhabit the great town looking down on the -yellow rock of Akragas, up by the citadel, busy in goodly works, -harbours of honour for the stranger, men unskilled in meanness, -all hail. I go about among you an immortal god, no mortal -now, honoured among all as is meet, crowned with fillets and <span class='linenum'>5</span> -flowery garlands. Straightway, whenever I enter with these -in my train, both men and women, into the flourishing towns, -is reverence done me; they go after me in countless throngs, -asking of me what is the way to gain; some desiring oracles, -while some, who for many a weary day have been pierced <span class='linenum'>10</span> -by the grievous pangs of all manner of sickness, beg to hear -from me the word of healing. R. P. 162 f.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(113)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But why do I harp on these things, as if it were any great -matter that I should surpass mortal, perishable men?</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(114)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Friends, I know indeed that truth is in the words I shall -utter, but it is hard for men, and jealous are they of the -assault of belief on their souls.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.115'></a>(115)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>There is an oracle of Necessity,<a id='r569' /><a href='#f569' class='c014'><sup>[569]</sup></a> an ancient ordinance of -the gods, eternal and sealed fast by broad oaths, that whenever -one of the dæmons, whose portion is length of days, has -sinfully polluted his hands with blood,<a id='r570' /><a href='#f570' class='c014'><sup>[570]</sup></a> or followed strife and <span class='linenum'>5</span> -forsworn himself, he must wander thrice ten thousand years -from the abodes of the blessed, being born throughout the -time in all manners of mortal forms, changing one toilsome -<span class='pageno' id='Page_257'>257</span>path of life for another. For the mighty Air drives him into -the Sea, and the Sea spews him forth on the dry Earth; -Earth tosses him into the beams of the blazing Sun, and he <span class='linenum'>10</span> -flings him back to the eddies of Air. One takes him from -the other, and all reject him. One of these I now am, an -exile and a wanderer from the gods, for that I put my trust -in insensate strife. R. P. 181.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(116)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Charis loathes intolerable Necessity.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(117)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For I have been ere now a boy and a girl, a bush and a -bird and a dumb fish in the sea. R. P. 182.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(118)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>I wept and I wailed when I saw the unfamiliar land. -R. P. 182.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(119)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>From what honour, from what a height of bliss have I -fallen to go about among mortals here on earth.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(120)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>We have come under this roofed-in cave.<a id='r571' /><a href='#f571' class='c014'><sup>[571]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(121)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>... the joyless land, where are Death and Wrath and -troops of Dooms besides; and parching Plagues and Rottennesses -and Floods roam in darkness over the meadow of Ate.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(122, 123)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>There were<a id='r572' /><a href='#f572' class='c014'><sup>[572]</sup></a> Chthonie and far-sighted Heliope, bloody -Discord and gentle-visaged Harmony, Kallisto and Aischre, -Speed and Tarrying, lovely Truth and dark-haired Uncertainty, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_258'>258</span>Birth and Decay, Sleep and Waking, Movement and Immobility, -crowned Majesty and Meanness, Silence and Voice. <span class='linenum'>5</span> -R. P. 182 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(124)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Alas, O wretched race of mortals, twice unblessed: such -are the strifes and groanings from which ye have been born!</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(125)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>From living creatures he made them dead, changing their -forms.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(126)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>(The goddess) clothing them with a strange garment of -flesh.<a id='r573' /><a href='#f573' class='c014'><sup>[573]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(127)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Among beasts they<a id='r574' /><a href='#f574' class='c014'><sup>[574]</sup></a> become lions that make their lair on -the hills and their couch on the ground; and laurels among -trees with goodly foliage. R. P. 181 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.128'></a>(128)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Nor had they<a id='r575' /><a href='#f575' class='c014'><sup>[575]</sup></a> any Ares for a god nor Kydoimos, no nor -King Zeus nor Kronos nor Poseidon, but Kypris the Queen.... -Her did they propitiate with holy gifts, with painted -figures<a id='r576' /><a href='#f576' class='c014'><sup>[576]</sup></a> and perfumes of cunning fragrancy, with offerings of -pure myrrh and sweet-smelling frankincense, casting on the <span class='linenum'>5</span> -ground libations of brown honey. And the altar did not -reek with pure bull’s blood, but this was held in the greatest -abomination among men, to eat the goodly limbs after tearing -out the life. R. P. 184.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_259'>259</span><a id='Em.129'></a>(129)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And there was among them a man of rare knowledge, -most skilled in all manner of wise works, a man who had won -the utmost wealth of wisdom; for whensoever he strained -with all his mind, he easily saw everything of all the things -that are, in ten, yea, twenty lifetimes of men.<a id='r577' /><a href='#f577' class='c014'><sup>[577]</sup></a> <span class='linenum'>5</span></p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(130)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For all things were tame and gentle to man, both beasts -and birds, and friendly feelings were kindled everywhere. -R. P. 184 a.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(131)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>If ever, as regards the things of a day, immortal Muse, thou -didst deign to take thought for my endeavour, then stand by -me once more as I pray to thee, O Kalliopeia, as I utter -a pure discourse concerning the blessed gods. R. P. 179.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(132)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Blessed is the man who has gained the riches of divine -wisdom; wretched he who has a dim opinion of the gods in -his heart. R. P. 179.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(133)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It is not possible for us to set God before our eyes, or to -lay hold of him with our hands, which is the broadest way of -persuasion that leads into the heart of man.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.134'></a>(134)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For he is not furnished with a human head on his body, -two branches do not sprout from his shoulders, he has no -feet, no swift knees, nor hairy parts; but he is only a sacred -and unutterable mind flashing through the whole world with -rapid thoughts. R. P. 180.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(135)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>This is not lawful for some and unlawful for others; but -the law for all extends everywhere, through the wide-ruling air -and the infinite light of heaven. R. P. 183.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_260'>260</span>(136)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Will ye not cease from this ill-sounding slaughter? See ye -not that ye are devouring one another in the thoughtlessness -of your hearts? R. P. 184 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><a id='Em.137'></a>(137)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>And the father lifts up his own son in a changed form and -slays him with a prayer. Infatuated fool! And they run up -to the sacrifices, begging mercy, while he, deaf to their cries, -slaughters them in his halls and gets ready the evil feast. In -like manner does the son seize his father, and children their <span class='linenum'>5</span> -mother, tear out their life and eat the kindred flesh. -R. P. 184 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(138)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Draining their life with bronze.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(139)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Ah, woe is me that the pitiless day of death did not destroy -me ere ever I wrought evil deeds of devouring with my lips! -R. P. 184 b.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(140)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Abstain wholly from laurel leaves.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(141)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Wretches, utter wretches, keep your hands from beans!</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(142)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Him will the roofed palace of aigis-bearing Zeus never -rejoice, nor yet the house of....</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(143)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Wash your hands, cutting the water from the five springs -in the unyielding bronze.<a id='r578' /><a href='#f578' class='c014'><sup>[578]</sup></a> R. P. 184 c.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(144)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Fast from wickedness! R. P. 184 c.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div><span class='pageno' id='Page_261'>261</span>(145)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Therefore are ye distraught by grievous wickednesses, and -will not unburden your souls of wretched sorrows.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(146, 147)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>But, at the last, they appear among mortal men as prophets, -song-writers, physicians, and princes; and thence they rise up -as gods exalted in honour, sharing the hearth of the other gods -and the same table, free from human woes, safe from destiny, -and incapable of hurt. <span class='linenum'>5</span> R. P. 181 c.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> -<div class='nf-center c001'> - <div>(148)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>... Earth that envelops the man.</p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>Empedokles and Parmenides.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec106'></a>106. At the very outset of his poem, Empedokles -is careful to mark the difference between himself and -previous inquirers. He speaks angrily of those who, -though their experience was only partial, professed to -have found the whole (fr. <a href='#Em.2'>2</a>); he even calls this -“madness” (fr. <a href='#Em.4'>4</a>). No doubt he is thinking of -Parmenides. His own position is not, however, -sceptical. He only deprecates the attempt to construct -a theory of the universe off-hand instead of trying to -understand each thing we come across “in the way in -which it is clear” (fr. <a href='#Em.4'>4</a>). And this means that we -must not, like Parmenides, reject the assistance of the -senses. Weak though they are (fr. <a href='#Em.2'>2</a>), they are the -only channels through which knowledge can enter our -minds at all. We soon discover, however, that -Empedokles is not very mindful of his own warnings. -He too sets up a system which is to explain everything, -though that system is no longer a monistic one.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is often said that this system was an attempt to -mediate between Parmenides and Herakleitos. It is -not easy, however, to find any trace of specially -Herakleitean doctrine in it, and it would be truer to -<span class='pageno' id='Page_262'>262</span>say that it aimed at mediating between Eleaticism -and the senses. He repeats, almost in the same words, -the Eleatic argument for the sole reality and indestructibility -of “what <em>is</em>” (frs. <a href='#Em.11'>11-15</a>); and his idea of -the “Sphere” seems to be derived from the Parmenidean -description of the universe as it truly is.<a id='r579' /><a href='#f579' class='c014'><sup>[579]</sup></a> Parmenides -had held that the reality which underlies the illusory -world presented to us by the senses was a corporeal, -spherical, continuous, eternal, and immovable <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>plenum</i></span>, -and it is from this that Empedokles starts. Given the -sphere of Parmenides, he seems to have said, How are -we to get from it to the world we know? How are -we to introduce motion into the immovable <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>plenum</i></span>? -Now Parmenides need not have denied the possibility -of motion within the Sphere, though he was -bound to deny all motion of the Sphere itself; but -such an admission on his part, had he made it, would -not have served to explain anything. If any part of -the Sphere were to move, the room of the displaced -matter must at once be taken by other matter, for -there is no empty space. This, however, would be of -precisely the same kind as the matter it had displaced; -for all “that <em>is</em>” is one. The result of the motion -would be precisely the same as that of rest; it could -account for no change. But, Empedokles must have -asked, is this assumption of perfect homogeneity in -the Sphere really necessary? Evidently not; it is -simply the old unreasoned feeling that existence must -be one. If, instead of this, we were to assume a -number of existent things, it would be quite possible -to apply all that Parmenides says of reality to each of -them, and the forms of existence we know might be -<span class='pageno' id='Page_263'>263</span>explained by the mingling and separation of those -realities. The conception of “elements” (στοιχεῖα), to -use a later term,<a id='r580' /><a href='#f580' class='c014'><sup>[580]</sup></a> was found, and the required formula -follows at once. So far as concerns particular things, -it is true, as our senses tell us, that they come into -being and pass away; but, if we have regard to the -ultimate elements of which they are composed, we -shall say with Parmenides that “what <em>is</em>” is uncreated -and indestructible (fr. <a href='#Pa.17'>17</a>).</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The “four roots.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec107'></a>107. The “four roots” of all things (fr. <a href='#Em.6'>6</a>) which -Empedokles assumed were those that have become -traditional—Fire, Air, Earth, and Water. It is to be -noticed, however, that he does not call Air ἀήρ, but -αἰθήρ, and this must be because he wished to avoid -any confusion with what had hitherto been meant by -the former word. He had, in fact, made the great -discovery that atmospheric air is a distinct corporeal -substance, and is not to be identified with empty space -on the one hand or rarefied mist on the other. Water -is not liquid air, but something quite different.<a id='r581' /><a href='#f581' class='c014'><sup>[581]</sup></a> This -truth Empedokles demonstrated by means of the -apparatus known as the <em>klepsydra</em>, and we still possess -the verses in which he applied his discovery to the -explanation of respiration and the motion of the blood -(fr. <a href='#Em.100'>100</a>). Aristotle laughs at those who try to show -there is no empty space by shutting up air in water-clocks -and torturing wineskins. They only prove, he -says, that air is a thing.<a id='r582' /><a href='#f582' class='c014'><sup>[582]</sup></a> That, however, is exactly -<span class='pageno' id='Page_264'>264</span>what Empedokles intended to prove, and it was one -of the most important discoveries in the early history -of science. It will be convenient for us to translate -the αἰθήρ of Empedokles by “air”; but we must be -careful in that case not to render the word ἀήρ in the -same way. Anaxagoras seems to have been the first -to use it of atmospheric air.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Empedokles also called the “four roots” by the -names of certain divinities—“shining Zeus, life-bringing -Hera, Aidoneus, and Nestis” (fr. <a href='#Em.6'>6</a>)—though there is -some doubt as to how these names are to be apportioned -among the elements. Nestis is said to have -been a Sicilian water-goddess, and the description of -her shows that she stands for Water; but there is a -conflict of opinion as to the other three. This, however, -need not detain us.<a id='r583' /><a href='#f583' class='c014'><sup>[583]</sup></a> We are already prepared -to find that Empedokles called the elements gods; for -all the early thinkers had spoken in this way of -whatever they regarded as the primary substance. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_265'>265</span>We must only remember that the word is not used in -its religious sense. Empedokles did not pray or -sacrifice to the elements, and the use of divine names -is in the main an accident of the poetical form in -which he cast his system.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Empedokles regarded the “roots of all things” as -eternal. Nothing can come from nothing or pass -away into nothing (fr. <a href='#Em.12'>12</a>); what is <em>is</em>, and there is no -room for coming into being and passing away (fr. <a href='#Em.8'>8</a>). -Further, Aristotle tells us, he taught that they were -unchangeable.<a id='r584' /><a href='#f584' class='c014'><sup>[584]</sup></a> This Empedokles expressed by saying -that “they are what they are” (frs. <a href='#Em.17'>17</a>, <a href='#Em.34'>34</a>; <a href='#Em.21'>21</a>, <a href='#Em.13'>13</a>), -and are “always alike.” Again, they are all “equal,” -a statement which seemed strange to Aristotle,<a id='r585' /><a href='#f585' class='c014'><sup>[585]</sup></a> but -was quite intelligible in the days of Empedokles. -Above all, the elements are ultimate. All other bodies, -as Aristotle puts it, might be divided till you came -to the elements; but Empedokles could give no -further account of these without saying (as he did not) -that there is an element of which Fire and the rest -are in turn composed.<a id='r586' /><a href='#f586' class='c014'><sup>[586]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The “four roots” are given as an exhaustive -enumeration of the elements (fr. <a href='#Em.23'>23</a> <i>sub fin.</i>); for they -account for all the qualities presented by the world to -the senses. When we find, as we do, that the school -of medicine which regarded Empedokles as its founder -<span class='pageno' id='Page_266'>266</span>identified the four elements with the “opposites,” the -hot and the cold, the moist and the dry, which formed -the theoretical foundation of its system, we see at once -how the theory is related to previous views of reality.<a id='r587' /><a href='#f587' class='c014'><sup>[587]</sup></a> -To put it shortly, what Empedokles did was to take -the opposites of Anaximander and to declare that -they were “things,” each of which was real in the -Parmenidean sense. We must remember that the -conception of quality had not yet been formed. -Anaximander had no doubt regarded his “opposites” -as things; though, before the time of Parmenides, no -one had fully realised how much was implied in saying -that anything is a thing. That is the stage we have -now reached. There is still no conception of quality, -but there is a clear apprehension of what is involved -in saying that a thing <em>is</em>.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Aristotle twice<a id='r588' /><a href='#f588' class='c014'><sup>[588]</sup></a> makes the statement that, though -Empedokles assumes four elements, he treats them as -two, opposing Fire to all the rest. This, he says, we -can see for ourselves from his poem. So far as the -general theory of the elements goes, it is impossible to -see anything of the sort; but, when we come to the -origin of the world (<a href='#sec112'>§ 112</a>), we shall find that Fire -certainly plays a leading part, and this may be what -Aristotle meant. It is also true that in the biology -(<a href='#sec114'>§ 114</a>–<a href='#sec116'>116</a>) Fire fulfils a unique function, while the -other three act more or less in the same way. But we -must remember that it has no pre-eminence over the -rest: all are equal.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Strife and Love.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec108'></a>108. The Eleatic criticism had made it necessary for -<span class='pageno' id='Page_267'>267</span>subsequent thinkers to explain motion.<a id='r589' /><a href='#f589' class='c014'><sup>[589]</sup></a> Empedokles -starts, as we have seen, from an original state of the -“four roots,” which only differs from the Sphere of -Parmenides in so far as it is a mixture, not a homogeneous -and continuous mass. The fact that it is a -mixture makes change and motion possible; but, were -there nothing outside the Sphere which could enter -in, like the Pythagorean “Air,” to separate the four -elements, nothing could ever arise from it. Empedokles -accordingly assumed the existence of such a substance, -and he gave it the name of Strife. But the effect of -this would be to separate all the elements in the -Sphere completely, and then nothing more could -possibly happen; something else was needed to bring -the elements together again. This Empedokles found -in Love, which he regarded as the same impulse to -union that is implanted in human bodies (fr. <a href='#Em.17'>17</a>, <a href='#Em.22'>22</a> -sqq.). He looks at it, in fact, from a purely -physiological point of view, as was natural for the -founder of a medical school. No mortal had yet -marked, he says, that the very same Love which -men know in their bodies had a place among the -elements.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is important to observe that the Love and Strife -of Empedokles are no incorporeal forces, but corporeal -elements like the other four. At the time, this was -inevitable; nothing incorporeal had yet been dreamt of. -Naturally, Aristotle is puzzled by this characteristic of -what he regarded as efficient causes. “The Love -of Empedokles,” he says<a id='r590' /><a href='#f590' class='c014'><sup>[590]</sup></a> “is both an efficient cause, -for it brings things together, and a material cause, for -it is a part of the mixture.” And Theophrastos -<span class='pageno' id='Page_268'>268</span>expressed the same idea by saying<a id='r591' /><a href='#f591' class='c014'><sup>[591]</sup></a> that Empedokles -sometimes gave an efficient power to Love and Strife, -and sometimes put them on a level with the other -four. The verses of Empedokles himself leave no -room for doubt that the two were thought of as spatial -and corporeal. All the six are called “equal.” Love -is said to be “equal in length and breadth” to the -others, and Strife is described as equal to each of them -in weight (fr. <a href='#Em.17'>17</a>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The function of Love is to produce union; that of -Strife, to break it up again. Aristotle, however, rightly -points out that in another sense it is Love that divides -and Strife that unites. When the Sphere is broken up -by Strife, the result is that all the Fire, for instance, -which was contained in it comes together and becomes -one; and again, when the elements are brought -together once more by Love, the mass of each is -divided. In another place, he says that, while Strife is -assumed as the cause of destruction, and does, in fact, -destroy the Sphere, it really gives birth to everything -else in so doing.<a id='r592' /><a href='#f592' class='c014'><sup>[592]</sup></a> It follows that we must carefully -distinguish between the Love of Empedokles and -that “attraction of like for like” to which he also -attributed an important part in the formation of the -world. The latter is not an element distinct from the -others; it depends, we shall see, on the proper nature -of each element, and is only able to take effect when -Strife divides the Sphere. Love, on the contrary, is -something that comes from outside and produces an -attraction of <em>unlikes</em>.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Mixture and separation.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_269'>269</span><a id='sec109'></a>109. But, when Strife has once separated the -elements, what is it that determines the direction of -their motion? Empedokles seems to have given no -further explanation than that each was “running” -in a certain direction (fr. <a href='#Em.53'>53</a>). Plato severely condemns -this in the <cite>Laws</cite>,<a id='r593' /><a href='#f593' class='c014'><sup>[593]</sup></a> on the ground that no room -is thus left for design. Aristotle also blames him for -giving no account of the Chance to which he ascribed -so much importance. Nor is the Necessity, of which -he also spoke, further explained.<a id='r594' /><a href='#f594' class='c014'><sup>[594]</sup></a> Strife enters into -the Sphere at a certain time in virtue of Necessity, or -“the mighty oath” (fr. <a href='#Em.30'>30</a>); but we are left in the dark -as to the origin of this.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The expression used by Empedokles to describe the -movement of the elements is that they “run through -each other” (fr. <a href='#Em.17'>17</a>, <a href='#Em.34'>34</a>). Aristotle tells us<a id='r595' /><a href='#f595' class='c014'><sup>[595]</sup></a> that he -explained mixture in general by “the symmetry of -pores.” And this is the true explanation of the -“attraction of like for like.” The “pores” of like -bodies are, of course, much the same size, and these -bodies can therefore mingle easily. On the other hand, -a finer body will “run through” a coarse one without -becoming mixed, and a coarse body will not be able -to enter into the pores of a finer one at all. It will be -observed that, as Aristotle says, this really implies -something like the atomic theory; but there is no -evidence that Empedokles himself was conscious of -that. Another question raised by Aristotle is even -more instructive. Are the pores, he asks, empty or -full? If empty, what becomes of the denial of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_270'>270</span>void? If full, why need we assume pores at all?<a id='r596' /><a href='#f596' class='c014'><sup>[596]</sup></a> -These questions Empedokles would have found it hard -to answer. They point to a real want of thoroughness -in his system, and mark it as a mere stage in the -transition from Monism to Atomism.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The four periods.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec110'></a>110. It will be clear from all this that we must -distinguish four periods in the cycle. First we have -the Sphere, in which all the elements are mixed -together by Love. Secondly, there is the period when -Love is passing out and Strife coming in, when, -therefore, the elements are partially separated and -partially combined. Thirdly, comes the complete -separation of the elements, when Love is outside the -world, and Strife has given free play to the attraction of -like for like. Lastly, we have the period when Love is -bringing the elements together again, and Strife is -passing out. This brings us back in time to the -Sphere, and the cycle begins afresh. Now a world -such as ours can exist only in the second and fourth of -these periods; and it is clear that, if we are to -understand Empedokles, we must discover in which of -these we now are. It seems to be generally supposed -that we are in the fourth period;<a id='r597' /><a href='#f597' class='c014'><sup>[597]</sup></a> I hope to show that -we are really in the second, that when Strife is gaining -the upper hand.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Our world the work of Strife.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec111'></a>111. That a world of perishable things arises both -in the second and fourth period is distinctly stated by -Empedokles (fr. <a href='#Em.17'>17</a>), and it is inconceivable that he -<span class='pageno' id='Page_271'>271</span>himself had not made up his mind which of these -worlds is ours. Aristotle is clearly of opinion that it is -the world which arises when Strife is increasing. In -one place, he says that Empedokles “holds that the -world is in a similar condition now in the period of -Strife as formerly in that of Love.”<a id='r598' /><a href='#f598' class='c014'><sup>[598]</sup></a> In another, he -tell us that Empedokles omits the generation of things -in the period of Love, just because it is unnatural to -represent this world, in which the elements are separate, -as arising from things in a state of separation.<a id='r599' /><a href='#f599' class='c014'><sup>[599]</sup></a> This -remark can only mean that the scientific theories contained -in the poem of Empedokles assumed the increase -of Strife, or, in other words, that they represented the -course of evolution as the disintegration of the Sphere, -not as the gradual coming together of things from a -state of separation.<a id='r600' /><a href='#f600' class='c014'><sup>[600]</sup></a> That is only what we should -expect, if we are right in supposing that the problem -he set himself to solve was the origin of this world from -the Sphere of Parmenides, and it is also in harmony -with the universal tendency of such speculations to -represent the world as getting worse rather than better. -We have only to consider, then, whether the details of -the system bear out this general view.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Formation of the world by Strife.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec112'></a>112. To begin with the Sphere, in which the “four -roots of all things” are mixed together, we note in the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_272'>272</span>first place that it is called a god in the fragments just -as the elements are, and that Aristotle more than once -refers to it in the same way.<a id='r601' /><a href='#f601' class='c014'><sup>[601]</sup></a> We must remember -that Love itself is a part of this mixture,<a id='r602' /><a href='#f602' class='c014'><sup>[602]</sup></a> while Strife -surrounds or encompasses it on every side just as the -Boundless encompasses the world in earlier systems. -Strife, however, is not boundless, but equal in bulk to -each of the four roots and to Love.</p> - -<p class='c002'>At the appointed time, Strife begins to enter into -the Sphere and Love to go out of it (frs. 30, 31). -The fragments by themselves throw little light on this; -but Aetios and the Plutarchean <cite>Stromateis</cite> have between -them preserved a very fair tradition of what Theophrastos -said on the point.</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Empedokles held that Air was first separated out and -secondly Fire. Next came Earth, from which, highly compressed -as it was by the impetus of its revolution, Water -gushed forth. From the water Mist was produced by -<span class='pageno' id='Page_273'>273</span>evaporation. The heavens were formed out of the Air and -the sun out of the Fire, while terrestrial things were condensed -from the other elements. Aet. ii. 6. 3 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 334; R. P. -170).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Empedokles held that the Air when separated off from the -original mixture of the elements was spread round in a circle. -After the Air, Fire running outwards, and not finding any -other place, ran up under the solid that surrounded the Air.<a id='r603' /><a href='#f603' class='c014'><sup>[603]</sup></a> -There were two hemispheres revolving round the earth, the -one altogether composed of fire, the other of a mixture of air -and a little fire. The latter he supposed to be the Night. -The origin of their motion he derived from the fact of fire -preponderating in one hemisphere owing to its accumulation -there. Ps.-Plut. <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 10 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 582; R. P. 170 a).</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The first of the elements to be separated out by -Strife, then, was Air, which took the outermost position -surrounding the world (cf. fr. <a href='#Em.38'>38</a>). We must not, however, -take the statement that it surrounded the world -“in a circle” too strictly. It appears that Empedokles -regarded the heavens as shaped like an egg.<a id='r604' /><a href='#f604' class='c014'><sup>[604]</sup></a> Here, -probably, we have a trace of Orphic ideas. At any -rate, the outer circle of the Air became solidified or -frozen, and we thus get a crystalline vault as the -boundary of the world. We note that it was Fire -which solidified the Air and turned it to ice. Fire in -general had a solidifying power.<a id='r605' /><a href='#f605' class='c014'><sup>[605]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>In its upward rush Fire displaced a portion of the -Air in the upper half of the concave sphere formed by -the frozen sky. This air then sunk downwards, -carrying with it a small portion of the fire. In this -<span class='pageno' id='Page_274'>274</span>way, two hemispheres were produced: one, consisting -entirely of fire, the diurnal hemisphere; the other, the -nocturnal, consisting of air with a little fire.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The accumulation of Fire in the upper hemisphere -disturbs the equilibrium of the heavens and causes them -to revolve; and this revolution not only produces the -alternation of day and night, but by its rapidity keeps -the heavens and the earth in their places. This was -illustrated, Aristotle tells us, by the simile of a cup of -water whirled round at the end of a string.<a id='r606' /><a href='#f606' class='c014'><sup>[606]</sup></a> The -verses which contained this remarkable account of so-called -“centrifugal force” have been lost; but the experimental -illustration is in the manner of Empedokles.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The sun, moon, stars, and earth.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec113'></a>113. It will be observed that day and night have -been explained without reference to the sun. Day is -produced by the light of the fiery diurnal hemisphere, -while night is the shadow thrown by the earth when -the fiery hemisphere is on the other side of it (fr. <a href='#Em.48'>48</a>). -What, then, is the sun? The Plutarchean <cite>Stromateis</cite><a id='r607' /><a href='#f607' class='c014'><sup>[607]</sup></a> -again give us the answer: “The sun is not fire in -substance, but a reflexion of fire like that which comes -from water.” Plutarch himself makes one of his -personages say: “You laugh at Empedokles for saying -that the sun is a product of the earth, arising from the -reflexion of the light of heaven, and once more ‘flashes -back to Olympos with untroubled countenance.’”<a id='r608' /><a href='#f608' class='c014'><sup>[608]</sup></a> -<span class='pageno' id='Page_275'>275</span>Aetios says:<a id='r609' /><a href='#f609' class='c014'><sup>[609]</sup></a> “Empedokles held that there were two -suns: one, the archetype, the fire in one hemisphere -of the world, filling the whole hemisphere always -stationed opposite its own reflexion; the other, the -visible sun, its reflexion in the other hemisphere, that -which is filled with air mingled with fire, produced by the -reflexion of the earth, which is round, on the crystalline -sun, and carried round by the motion of the fiery -hemisphere. Or, to sum it up shortly, the sun is a -reflexion of the terrestrial fire.”</p> - -<p class='c002'>These passages, and especially the last, are by no -means clear. The reflexion which we call the sun -cannot be in the hemisphere opposite to the fiery one; -for that is the nocturnal hemisphere. We must say -rather that the light of the fiery hemisphere is reflected -by the earth on to the fiery hemisphere itself in one -concentrated flash. From this it follows that the -appearance which we call the sun is the same size as -the earth. We may explain the origin of this view as -follows. It had just been discovered that the moon -shone by reflected light, and there is always a tendency -to give any novel theory a wider application than it -really admits of. In the early part of the fifth century -<span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, men saw reflected light everywhere; the Pythagoreans -held a very similar view, and when we come to -them, we shall see why Aetios, or rather his source, -expresses it by speaking of “two suns.”</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_276'>276</span>It was probably in this connexion that Empedokles -announced that light takes some time to travel, though -its speed is so great as to escape our perception.<a id='r610' /><a href='#f610' class='c014'><sup>[610]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>“The moon,” we are told, “was composed of air -cut off by the fire; it was frozen just like hail, and -had its light from the sun.” It is, in other words, a -disc of frozen air, of the same substance as the solid -sky which surrounds the heavens. Diogenes says that -Empedokles taught it was smaller than the sun, and -Aetios tells us it was only half as distant from the -earth.<a id='r611' /><a href='#f611' class='c014'><sup>[611]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Empedokles did not attempt to explain the fixed -stars by reflected light, nor even the planets. They -were fiery, made out of the fire which the air carried -with it when forced beneath the earth by the upward -rush of fire at the first separation, as we saw above. -The fixed stars were attached to the frozen air; the -planets moved freely.<a id='r612' /><a href='#f612' class='c014'><sup>[612]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Empedokles was acquainted (fr. <a href='#Em.42'>42</a>) with the true -theory of solar eclipses, which, along with that of the -moon’s light, was the great discovery of this period. -He also knew (fr. <a href='#Em.48'>48</a>) that night is the conical shadow -of the earth, and not a sort of exhalation.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Wind was explained from the opposite motions of -the fiery and airy hemispheres. Rain was caused by -the compression of the Air, which forced any water -there might be in it out of its pores in the form of -drops. Lightning was fire forced out from the clouds -in much the same way.<a id='r613' /><a href='#f613' class='c014'><sup>[613]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_277'>277</span>The earth was at first mixed with water, but the -increasing compression caused by the velocity of the -world’s revolution made the water gush forth, so that -the sea is called “the sweat of the earth,” a phrase to -which Aristotle objects as a mere poetical metaphor. -The saltness of the sea was explained by the help of -this analogy.<a id='r614' /><a href='#f614' class='c014'><sup>[614]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Organic combinations.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec114'></a>114. Empedokles went on to show how the four -elements, mingled in different proportions, gave rise -to perishable things, such as bones, flesh, and the like. -These, of course, are the work of Love; but this in no -way contradicts the view taken above as to the period -of evolution to which this world belongs. Love is by -no means banished from the world yet, though one -day it will be. At present, it is still able to form -combinations of elements; but, just because Strife is -ever increasing, they are all perishable.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The possibility of organic combinations depends -upon the fact that there is still water in the earth, and -even fire (fr. <a href='#Em.52'>52</a>). The warm springs of Sicily were a -proof of this, not to speak of Etna. These springs -Empedokles appears to have explained by one of his -characteristic images, drawn this time from the heating -of warm baths.<a id='r615' /><a href='#f615' class='c014'><sup>[615]</sup></a> It will be noted that his similes -are nearly all drawn from human inventions and -manufactures.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Plants.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec115'></a>115. Plants and animals were formed from the -four elements under the influence of Love and Strife. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_278'>278</span>The fragments which deal with trees and plants -are 77-81; and these, taken along with certain -Aristotelian statements and the doxographical tradition, -enable us to make out pretty fully what the theory -was. The text of Aetios is very corrupt here; but it -may, perhaps, be rendered as follows:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Empedokles says that trees were the first living creatures -to grow up out of the earth, before the sun was spread out, -and before day and night were distinguished; that, from the -symmetry of their mixture, they contain the proportion of -male and female; that they grow, rising up owing to the heat -which is in the earth, so that they are parts of the earth just -as embryos are parts of the uterus; that fruits are excretions -of the water and fire in plants, and that those which have a -deficiency of moisture shed their leaves when that is evaporated -by the summer heat, while those which have more moisture -remain evergreen, as in the case of the laurel, the olive, and -the palm; that the differences in taste are due to variations -in the particles contained in the earth and to the plants -drawing different particles from it, as in the case of vines; -for it is not the difference of the vines that makes wine good, -but that of the soil which nourishes them. Aet. v. 26, 4 -(R. P. 172).</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Aristotle finds fault with Empedokles for explaining -the double growth of plants, upwards and downwards, -by the opposite natural motions of the earth and fire -contained in them.<a id='r616' /><a href='#f616' class='c014'><sup>[616]</sup></a> For “natural motions” we must, -of course, substitute the attraction of like for like -(<a href='#sec109'>§ 109</a>). Theophrastos says much the same thing.<a id='r617' /><a href='#f617' class='c014'><sup>[617]</sup></a> -The growth of plants, then, is to be regarded as an -incident in that separation of the elements which -Strife is bringing about. Some of the fire which is -still beneath the earth (fr. <a href='#Em.52'>52</a>) meeting in its upward -<span class='pageno' id='Page_279'>279</span>course with earth, still moist with water and “running” -down so as to “reach its own kind,” unites with it, -under the influence of the Love still left in the world, -to form a temporary combination, which we call a tree -or a plant.</p> - -<p class='c002'>At the beginning of the pseudo-Aristotelian <cite>Treatise -on Plants</cite>,<a id='r618' /><a href='#f618' class='c014'><sup>[618]</sup></a> we are told that Empedokles attributed -desire, sensation, and the capacity for pleasure and -pain to plants, and he rightly saw that the two sexes -are combined in them. This is mentioned by Aetios, -and discussed in the pseudo-Aristotelian treatise. If -we may so far trust that Byzantine translation from a -Latin version of the Arabic,<a id='r619' /><a href='#f619' class='c014'><sup>[619]</sup></a> we get a most valuable -hint as to the reason. Plants, we are there told, came -into being “in an imperfect state of the world,”<a id='r620' /><a href='#f620' class='c014'><sup>[620]</sup></a> in -fact, at a time when Strife had not so far prevailed as -to differentiate the sexes. We shall see that the same -thing applies to the original race of animals in this -world. It is strange that Empedokles never observed -the actual process of generation in plants, but confined -himself to the statement that they spontaneously “bore -eggs” (fr. <a href='#Em.79'>79</a>), that is to say, fruit.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Evolution of animals.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec116'></a>116. The fragments which deal with the evolution -of animals (57-62) must be understood in the light -of the statement (fr. <a href='#Em.17'>17</a>) that there is a double coming -into being and a double passing away of mortal things. -Empedokles describes two processes of evolution, -which take exactly opposite courses, one of them -<span class='pageno' id='Page_280'>280</span>belonging to the period of Love and the other to that -of Strife. The four stages of this double evolution -are accurately distinguished in a passage of Aetios,<a id='r621' /><a href='#f621' class='c014'><sup>[621]</sup></a> and -we shall see that there is evidence for referring two of -them to the second period of the world’s history and -two to the fourth.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The first stage is that in which the various parts of -animals arise separately. It is that of heads without -necks, arms without shoulders, and eyes without foreheads -(fr. <a href='#Em.57'>57</a>). It is clear that this must be the first -stage in what we have called the fourth period of the -world’s history, that in which Love is coming in and -Strife passing out. Aristotle distinctly refers it to the -period of Love, by which, as we have seen, he means -the period when Love is increasing.<a id='r622' /><a href='#f622' class='c014'><sup>[622]</sup></a> It is in -accordance with this that he also says these scattered -members were subsequently put together by Love.<a id='r623' /><a href='#f623' class='c014'><sup>[623]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The second stage is that in which the scattered -limbs are united. At first, they were combined in all -possible ways (fr. <a href='#Em.59'>59</a>). There were oxen with human -heads, creatures with double faces and double breasts, -and all manner of monsters (fr. <a href='#Em.61'>61</a>). Those of them -that were fitted to survive did so, while the rest -perished. That is how the evolution of animals took -place in the period of Love.<a id='r624' /><a href='#f624' class='c014'><sup>[624]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_281'>281</span>The third stage belongs to the period when the -unity of the Sphere is being destroyed by Strife. It is, -therefore, the first stage in the evolution of our present -world. It begins with “whole-natured forms” in which -there is not as yet any distinction of sex or species.<a id='r625' /><a href='#f625' class='c014'><sup>[625]</sup></a> -They are composed of earth and water, and are -produced by the upward motion of fire which is seeking -to reach its like.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In the fourth stage, the sexes and species have -been separated, and new animals no longer arise from -the elements, but are produced by generation. We -shall see presently how Empedokles conceived this -to operate.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In both these processes of evolution, Empedokles -was guided by the idea of the survival of the fittest. -Aristotle severely criticises this. “We may suppose,” -he says, “that all things have fallen out accidentally just -as they would have done if they had been produced for -some end. Certain things have been preserved because -they had spontaneously acquired a fitting structure, -while those which were not so put together have -perished and are perishing, as Empedokles says of the -oxen with human faces.”<a id='r626' /><a href='#f626' class='c014'><sup>[626]</sup></a> This, according to Aristotle, -leaves too much to chance. One curious instance has -been preserved. Vertebration was explained by saying -that an early invertebrate animal tried to turn round -and broke its back in so doing. This was a favourable -variation and so survived.<a id='r627' /><a href='#f627' class='c014'><sup>[627]</sup></a> It should be noted that it -clearly belongs to the period of Strife, and not, like -<span class='pageno' id='Page_282'>282</span>the oxen with human heads, to that of Love. The -survival of the fittest was the law of both processes of -evolution.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec117'></a>117. The distinction of the sexes was an important -result of the gradual differentiation brought about by -the entrance of Strife into the world. Empedokles -differed from the theory given by Parmenides in his -Second Part (<a href='#sec95'>§ 95</a>) in holding that the warm element -preponderated in the male sex, and that males were -conceived in the warmer part of the uterus (fr. <a href='#Em.65'>65</a>). -The fœtus was formed partly from the male and partly -from the female semen (fr. <a href='#Em.63'>63</a>); and it was just the fact -that the substance of a new being’s body was divided -between the male and the female that produced desire -when the two were brought together by sight (fr. <a href='#Em.64'>64</a>). A -certain symmetry of the pores in the male and female -semen is, of course, necessary for procreation, and from -its absence Empedokles explained the sterility of mules. -The children most resemble that parent who contributed -most to their formation. The influence of statues and -pictures was also noted, however, as modifying the -appearance of the offspring. Twins and triplets were -due to a superabundance and division of the semen.<a id='r628' /><a href='#f628' class='c014'><sup>[628]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>As to the growth of the fœtus in the uterus, Empedokles -held that it was enveloped in a membrane, -and that its formation began on the thirty-sixth day -and was completed on the forty-ninth. The heart was -formed first, the nails and such things last. Respiration -did not begin till the time of birth, when the fluids -round the fœtus were withdrawn. Birth took place -in the ninth or seventh month, because the day had -<span class='pageno' id='Page_283'>283</span>been originally nine months long, and afterwards -seven. Milk arises on the tenth day of the eighth -month (fr. <a href='#Em.68'>68</a>).<a id='r629' /><a href='#f629' class='c014'><sup>[629]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Death was the final separation by Strife of the fire -and earth in the body, each of which had all along -been striving to “reach its own kind.” Sleep was a -temporary separation to a certain extent of the fiery -element.<a id='r630' /><a href='#f630' class='c014'><sup>[630]</sup></a> At death the animal is resolved into its -elements, which perhaps enter into fresh combinations, -perhaps become permanently united with “their own -kind.” There can be no question here of an immortal -soul.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Even in life, we may see the attraction of like to -like operating in animals just as it did in the upward -and downward growth of plants. Hair is the same -thing as foliage (fr. <a href='#Em.82'>82</a>); and, generally speaking, the -fiery part of animals tends upwards and the earthy -part downwards, though there are exceptions, as may -be seen in the case of certain shell-fish (fr. <a href='#Em.76'>76</a>), where -the earthy part is above. These exceptions are only -possible because there is still a great deal of Love -in the world. We also see the attraction of like for -like in the different habits of the various species of -animals. Those that have most fire in them fly up -into the air; those in which earth preponderates take -to the earth, as did the dog which always sat upon a -tile.<a id='r631' /><a href='#f631' class='c014'><sup>[631]</sup></a> Aquatic animals are those in which water predominates. -This does not, however, apply to fishes, -which are very fiery, and take to the water to cool -themselves.<a id='r632' /><a href='#f632' class='c014'><sup>[632]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_284'>284</span>Empedokles paid great attention to the subject of -respiration, and his very ingenious explanation of it has -been preserved in a continuous form (fr. <a href='#Em.100'>100</a>). We -breathe, he held, through all the pores of the skin, not -merely through the organs of respiration. The cause -of the alternate inspiration and expiration of the breath -was the movement of the blood from the heart to -the surface of the body and back again, which was -explained by the <em>klepsydra</em>.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The nutrition and growth of animals is, of course, -to be explained from the attraction of like to like. -Each part of the body has pores into which the appropriate -food will fit. Pleasure and pain were derived -from the absence or presence of like elements, that is, of -nourishment which would fit the pores. Tears and -sweat arose from a disturbance which curdled the blood; -they were, so to say, the whey of the blood.<a id='r633' /><a href='#f633' class='c014'><sup>[633]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Perception.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec118'></a>118. For the theory of perception held by Empedokles -we have the original words of Theophrastos:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Empedokles speaks in the same way of all the senses, and -says that perception is due to the “effluences” fitting into -the passages of each sense. And that is why one cannot -judge the objects of another; for the passages of some of -them are too wide and those of others too narrow for the -sensible object, so that the latter either goes through without -touching or cannot enter at all. R. P. 177 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'>He tries, too, to explain the nature of sight. He says that -the interior of the eye consists of fire, while round about it is -earth and air,<a id='r634' /><a href='#f634' class='c014'><sup>[634]</sup></a> through which its rarity enables the fire to -pass like the light in lanterns (fr. <a href='#Em.84'>84</a>). The passages of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_285'>285</span>fire and water are arranged alternately; through those of the -fire we perceive light objects, through those of the water, -dark; each class of objects fits into each class of passages, -and the colours are carried to the sight by effluence. -R. P. <i>ib.</i></p> - -<p class='c002'>But eyes are not all composed in the same way; some are -composed of like elements and some of opposite; some have -the fire in the centre and some on the outside. That is why -some animals are keen-sighted by day and others by night. -Those which have less fire are keen-sighted in the daytime, -for the fire within is brought up to an equality by that -without; those which have less of the opposite (<i>i.e.</i> water), by -night, for then their deficiency is supplemented. But, in -the opposite case, each will behave in the opposite manner. -Those eyes in which fire predominates will be dazzled in the -daytime, since the fire being still further increased will stop -up and occupy the pores of the water. Those in which water -predominates will, he says, suffer the same at night, for the -fire will be obstructed by the water. And this goes on till -the water is separated off by the air, for in each case it is -the opposite which is a remedy. The best tempered and -the most excellent vision is one composed of both in -equal proportions. This is practically what he says about -sight.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Hearing, he holds, is produced by sound outside, when -the air moved by the voice sounds inside the ear; for the -sense of hearing is a sort of bell sounding inside the ear, -which he calls a “fleshy sprout.” When the air is set in -motion it strikes upon the solid parts and produces a sound.<a id='r635' /><a href='#f635' class='c014'><sup>[635]</sup></a> -Smell, he holds, arises from respiration, and that is why those -smell most keenly whose breath has the most violent motion, -and why most smell comes from subtle and light bodies.<a id='r636' /><a href='#f636' class='c014'><sup>[636]</sup></a> As -to touch and taste, he does not lay down how nor by means -of what they arise, except that he gives us an explanation -applicable to all, that sensation is produced by adaptation to -the pores. Pleasure is produced by what is like in its -elements and their mixture; pain, by what is opposite. -R. P. <i>ib.</i></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_286'>286</span>And he gives a precisely similar account of thought and -ignorance. Thought arises from what is like and ignorance -from what is unlike, thus implying that thought is the same, -or nearly the same, as perception. For after enumerating -how we know each thing by means of itself, he adds, “for all -things are fashioned and fitted together out of these, and it -is by these men think and feel pleasure and pain” (fr. <a href='#Em.107'>107</a>). -And for this reason we think chiefly with our blood, for in -it of all parts of the body all the elements are most completely -mingled. R. P. 178.</p> - -<p class='c002'>All, then, in whom the mixture is equal or nearly so, and -in whom the elements are neither at too great intervals nor -too small or too large, are the wisest and have the most exact -perceptions; and those who come next to them are wise in -proportion. Those who are in the opposite condition are the -most foolish. Those whose elements are separated by intervals -and rare are dull and laborious; those in whom they are -closely packed and broken into minute particles are impulsive, -they attempt many things and finish few because of the -rapidity with which their blood moves. Those who have a -well-proportioned mixture in some one part of their bodies -will be clever in that respect. That is why some are good -orators and some good artificers. The latter have a good -mixture in their hands, and the former in their tongues, and -so with all other special capacities. R. P. <i>ib.</i></p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Perception, then, is due to the meeting of an element -in us with the same element outside. This takes place -when the pores of the organ of sense are neither too -large nor too small for the “effluences” which all -things are constantly giving off (fr. <a href='#Em.89'>89</a>). Smell was -explained by respiration. The breath drew in along -with it the small particles which fit into the pores. -From Aetios<a id='r637' /><a href='#f637' class='c014'><sup>[637]</sup></a> we learn that Empedokles proved this -by the example of people with a cold in their head, -who cannot smell, just because they have a difficulty -<span class='pageno' id='Page_287'>287</span>in breathing. We also see from fr. <a href='#Em.101'>101</a> that the -scent of dogs was referred to in support of the theory. -Empedokles seems to have given no detailed account -of smell, and did not refer to touch at all.<a id='r638' /><a href='#f638' class='c014'><sup>[638]</sup></a> Hearing -was explained by the motion of the air which struck -upon the cartilage inside the ear and made it swing -and sound like a bell.<a id='r639' /><a href='#f639' class='c014'><sup>[639]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The theory of vision<a id='r640' /><a href='#f640' class='c014'><sup>[640]</sup></a> is more complicated; and, -as Plato adopted most of it, it is of great importance -in the history of philosophy. The eye was conceived, -as by Alkmaion (<a href='#sec96'>§ 96</a>),<a id='r641' /><a href='#f641' class='c014'><sup>[641]</sup></a> to be composed of fire and -water. Just as in a lantern the flame is protected -from the wind by horn (fr. <a href='#Em.84'>84</a>), so the fire in the iris -is protected from the water which surrounds it in the -pupil by membranes with very fine pores, so that, -while the fire can pass out, the water cannot get in. -Sight is produced by the fire inside the eye going forth -to meet the object. This seems strange to us, because -we are accustomed to the idea of images being -impressed upon the retina. But <em>looking</em> at a thing -no doubt seemed much more like an action proceeding -from the eye than a mere passive state.</p> - -<p class='c002'>He was quite aware, too, that “effluences,” as he -called them, came from things to the eyes as well; -for he defined colours as “effluences from forms (or -‘things’) fitting into the pores and perceived.”<a id='r642' /><a href='#f642' class='c014'><sup>[642]</sup></a> It is -not quite clear how these two accounts of vision were -reconciled, or how far we are entitled to credit -Empedokles with the Platonic theory. The statements -<span class='pageno' id='Page_288'>288</span>which have been quoted seem to imply something very -like it.<a id='r643' /><a href='#f643' class='c014'><sup>[643]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Theophrastos tells us that Empedokles made no -distinction between thought and perception, a remark -already made by Aristotle.<a id='r644' /><a href='#f644' class='c014'><sup>[644]</sup></a> The chief seat of perception -was the blood, in which the four elements are -most evenly mixed, and especially the blood near the -heart (fr. <a href='#Em.105'>105</a>).<a id='r645' /><a href='#f645' class='c014'><sup>[645]</sup></a> This does not, however, exclude the -idea that other parts of the body may perceive also; -indeed, Empedokles held that all things have their -share of thought (fr. <a href='#Em.103'>103</a>). But the blood was specially -sensitive because of its finer mixture.<a id='r646' /><a href='#f646' class='c014'><sup>[646]</sup></a> From this it -naturally follows that Empedokles adopted the view, -already maintained in the Second Part of the poem of -Parmenides (fr. <a href='#Em.16'>16</a>), that our knowledge varies with -the varying constitution of our bodies (fr. <a href='#Em.106'>106</a>). This -consideration became very important later on as one -of the foundations of scepticism; but Empedokles -himself only drew from it the conclusion that we must -make the best use we can of our senses, and check one -by the other (fr. <a href='#Em.4'>4</a>).</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Theology and religion.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec119'></a>119. The theoretical theology of Empedokles -reminds us of Xenophanes, his practical religious -teaching of Pythagoras and the Orphics. We are told -in the earlier part of the poem that certain “gods” are -composed of the elements; and that therefore though -<span class='pageno' id='Page_289'>289</span>they “live long lives” they must pass away (fr. <a href='#Em.21'>21</a>). -We have seen that the elements and the Sphere are also -called gods, but that is in quite another sense of the word.</p> - -<p class='c002'>If we turn to the religious teaching of the -<cite>Purifications</cite>, we find that everything turns on the -doctrine of transmigration. On the general significance -of this enough has been said above (<a href='#sec42'>§ 42</a>); the details -given by Empedokles are peculiar. According to a -decree of Necessity, “daemons” who have sinned are -forced to wander from their home in heaven for three -times ten thousand seasons (fr. <a href='#Em.115'>115</a>). He himself is -such an exiled divinity, and has fallen from his high -estate because he put his trust in raving Strife. The -four elements toss him from one to the other with -loathing; and so he has not only been a human being -and a plant, but even a fish. The only way to purify -oneself from the taint of original sin was by the cultivation -of ceremonial holiness, by purifications, and -abstinence from animal flesh. For the animals are our -kinsmen (fr. <a href='#Em.137'>137</a>), and it is parricide to lay hands on -them. In all this there are, no doubt, certain points of -contact with the cosmology. We have the “mighty -oath” (fr. <a href='#Em.115'>115</a>; cf. fr. <a href='#Em.30'>30</a>), the four elements, Hate as -the source of original sin, and Kypris as queen in the -Golden Age (fr. <a href='#Em.128'>128</a>). But these points are neither -fundamental nor of great importance. And it cannot -be denied that there are really contradictions between -the two poems. That, however, is just what we should -expect to find. All through this period, there seems -to have been a gulf between men’s religious beliefs, if -they had any, and their cosmological views. The few -points of contact which we have mentioned may have -been sufficient to hide this from Empedokles himself.</p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f501'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r501'>501</a>. Aet. i. 3, 20 (R. P. 164), Apollodoros <i>ap.</i> Diog. viii. 52 (R. P. 162). -The details of the life of Empedokles are discussed, with a careful criticism -of the sources, by Bidez, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>La biographie d’Empédocle</cite></span> (Gand, 1894).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f502'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r502'>502</a>. For this we have the authority of Apollodoros (Diog. viii. 51, 52; -R. P. 162), who follows the <cite>Olympic Victors</cite> of Eratosthenes, who in turn -appealed to Aristotle. Herakleides of Pontos, in his Περὶ νόσων (see -below, p. 233, <a href='#f520'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 520</ins></a>), spoke of the elder Empedokles as a “breeder of -horses” (R. P. 162 a); and Timaios mentioned him as a distinguished -man in his Fifteenth Book.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f503'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r503'>503</a>. Glaukos wrote Περὶ τῶν ἀρχαίων ποιητῶν καὶ μουσικῶν, and is said to -have been contemporary with Demokritos (Diog. ix. 38). Apollodoros adds -(R. P. 162) that, according to Aristotle and Herakleides, Empedokles died -at the age of sixty. It is to be observed, however, that the words ἔτι δ’ -Ἡρακλείδης are Sturz’s conjecture, the MSS. having ἔτι δ’ Ἡράκλειτον, and -Diogenes certainly said (ix. 3) that Herakleitos lived sixty years. On the -other hand, if the statement of Aristotle comes from the Περὶ ποιητῶν, it is -not obvious why he should mention Herakleitos at all; and Herakleides was -one of the chief sources for the biography of Empedokles.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f504'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r504'>504</a>. See Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Empedokles und Gorgias,” 2 (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Berl. Sitzb.</cite></span>, 1884)</span>. Theophrastos -said that Empedokles was born “not long after Anaxagoras” (<cite>Dox.</cite> -p. 477, 17); and Alkidamas made him the fellow-pupil of Zeno under Parmenides, -and the teacher of Gorgias (see below, p. 231, <a href='#f512'>n. 5</a>). Now Gorgias -was a little older than Antiphon (<i>b.</i> Ol. LXX.), so it is clear we must go -back <em>at least</em> to 490 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> for the birth of Empedokles.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f505'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r505'>505</a>. E. Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. des Alterth.</cite></span> ii. p. 508.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f506'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r506'>506</a>. He is called γραοσυλλέκτρια in Souidas, <i>s.v.</i> The view taken in the -text as to the value of his evidence is that of Holm.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f507'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r507'>507</a>. Timaios <i>ap.</i> Diog. viii. 64 (<cite>F.H.G.</cite> i. p. 214, fr. 88 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f508'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r508'>508</a>. In the first edition, I suggested the analogy of accusations for -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>incivisme</i></span>. Bidez says (p. 127), <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">“J’imagine qu’un Jacobin aurait mieux -jugé l’histoire”</span> (than Karsten and Holm); <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">“sous la Terreur, on était -suspect pour de moindres vétilles.”</span></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f509'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r509'>509</a>. Diog. viii. 65. The epigram runs thus:</p> - -<div class='lg-container-b c015'> - <div class='linegroup'> - <div class='group'> - <div class='line'>ἄκρον ἰητρὸν Ἄκρων’ Ἀκραγαντῖνον πατρὸς Ἄκρου</div> - <div class='line'>κρύπτει κρημνὸς ἄκρος πατρίδος ἀκροτάτης.</div> - </div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c006'>On Akron, see M. Wellmann, <i>op. cit.</i> p. 235, n. 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f510'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r510'>510</a>. Diog. viii. 66, ὕστερον δ’ ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ τὸ τῶν χιλίων ἄθροισμα -κατέλυσε συνεστὼς ἐπὶ ἔτη τρία. The word ἄθροισμα hardly suggests a -legal council, and συνίστασθαι suggests a conspiracy.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f511'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r511'>511</a>. Diog. viii. 63. Aristotle probably mentioned this in his <cite>Sophist.</cite> -Cf. Diog. viii. 57.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f512'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r512'>512</a>. Diog. viii. 59 (R. P. 162). Satyros probably followed Alkidamas. -Diels suggests (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Emp. u. Gorg.</cite></span> p. 358) that the φυσικός of Alkidamas was -a dialogue in which Gorgias was the chief speaker. In that case, the -statement would have little historical value.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f513'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r513'>513</a>. See Bidez, p. 115, n. 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f514'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r514'>514</a>. O. Kern, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Empedokles und die Orphiker”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> i. pp. 489 sqq.). -For the <cite>Rhapsodic Theogony</cite>, see Introd. p. 9, <a href='#f10'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 10</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f515'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r515'>515</a>. See below, note <i>in loc.</i></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f516'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r516'>516</a>. Diog. viii. 54 (R. P. 162).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f517'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r517'>517</a>. See below, note <i>in loc.</i></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f518'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r518'>518</a>. The latter view is that of Bidez (pp. 161 sqq.); but Diels has shown -(<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Berl. Sitzb.</cite></span>, 1898, pp. 406 sqq.) that the former is psychologically more -probable.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f519'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r519'>519</a>. I follow the wilder form of the story given by Diog. viii. 60, and not -the rationalised version of Plutarch (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>adv. Col.</cite></span> 1126 b). The epithets -ἀλεξανέμας and κωλυσανέμας were perhaps bestowed by some sillographer -in mockery; cf. ἀνεμοκοίτης.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f520'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r520'>520</a>. The Περὶ νόσων of Herakleides, from which it is derived, seems to -have been a sort of medico-philosophical romance. The words are -(Diog. viii. 60): Ἡρακλείδης τε ἐν τῷ Περὶ νόσων φησὶ καὶ Παυσανίᾳ -ὑφηγήσασθαι αὐτὸν τὰ περὶ τὴν ἄπνουν. It was a case of hysterical -suffocation.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f521'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r521'>521</a>. For these coins see Head, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Historia Numorum</cite></span>, pp. 147 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f522'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r522'>522</a>. Diog. viii. 57 (R. P. 162 g).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f523'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r523'>523</a>. Galen, x. 5, ἤριζον δ’ αὐτοῖς (the schools of Kos and Knidos) ... καὶ -οἱ ἐκ τῆς Ἰταλίας ἰατροί, Φιλιστίων τε καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς καὶ Παυσανίας καὶ -οἱ τούτων ἑταῖροι κ.τ.λ. Philistion was the contemporary and friend of -Plato; Pausanias is the disciple to whom Empedokles addressed his poem.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f524'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r524'>524</a>. See Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Empedokles und Gorgias”</span> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Berl. Sitzb.</cite></span>, 1884, pp. -343 sqq.). The oldest authority for saying that Gorgias was a disciple -of Empedokles is Satyros <i>ap.</i> Diog. viii. 58 (R. P. 162); but he seems to -have derived his information from Alkidamas, who was the disciple of -Gorgias himself. In Plato’s <cite>Meno</cite> (76 c 4-8) the Empedoklean theory -of effluvia and pores is ascribed to Gorgias.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f525'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r525'>525</a>. Diels (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Berl. Sitzb.</cite></span>, 1884, p. 343).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f526'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r526'>526</a>. See M. Wellmann, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Fragmentsammlung der griechischen Ärtzte</cite></span>, vol. -i. (Berlin, 1901). According to Wellmann, both Plato (in the <cite>Timaeus</cite>) -and Diokles of Karystos depend upon Philistion. It is impossible to -understand the history of philosophy from this point onwards without -keeping the history of medicine constantly in view.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f527'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r527'>527</a>. For the four elements, cf. Anon. Lond. xx. 25 (Menon’s <cite>Iatrika</cite>), -Φιλιστίων δ’ οἴεται ἐκ δʹ ἰδεῶν συνεστάναι ἡμᾶς, τοῦτ’ ἔστιν ἐκ δʹ στοιχείων· -πυρός, ἀέρος, ὕδατος, γῆς. εἶναι δὲ καὶ ἑκάστου δυνάμεις, τοῦ μὲν πυρὸς τὸ -θερμόν, τοῦ δὲ ἀέρος τὸ ψυχρόν, τοῦ δὲ ὕδατος τὸ ὑγρόν, τῆς δὲ γῆς τὸ -ξηρόν. For the theory of respiration, see Wellmann, pp. 82 sqq.; and for -the heart as the seat of consciousness, <i>ib.</i> pp. 15 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f528'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r528'>528</a>. Hippokr. Περὶ ἰερῆς νόσου, c 1, μάγοι τε καὶ καθάρται καὶ ἀγύρται καὶ -ἀλαζόνες. The whole passage should be read. Cf. Wellmann, p. 29 n.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f529'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r529'>529</a>. Diog. viii. 54-56 (R. P. 162).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f530'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r530'>530</a>. Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Verhandl. d. 35 Philologenversamml.</cite></span> pp. 104 sqq., Zeller, p. 767. -It would be fatal to the main thesis of the next few chapters if it could be -proved that Empedokles was influenced by Leukippos. I hope to show -that Leukippos was influenced by the later Pythagorean doctrine (Chap. -IX. <a href='#sec171'>§ 171</a>), which was in turn affected by Empedokles (Chap. VII. <a href='#sec147'>§ 147</a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f531'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r531'>531</a>. For πόροι in Alkmaion, cf. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. An.</cite></span> Β, 6. 744 a 8; Theophr. -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de sens.</cite></span> 26; and for the way in which his embryological and other views -were transmitted through Empedokles to the Ionian physicists, cf. -Fredrich, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Hippokratische Untersuchungen</cite></span>, pp. 126 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f532'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r532'>532</a>. R. P. 162 h. The story is always told with a hostile purpose.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f533'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r533'>533</a>. R. P. <i>ib.</i> This was the story told by Herakleides of Pontos, at the -end of his romance about the ἄπνους.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f534'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r534'>534</a>. Timaios took the trouble to refute the common stories at some length -(Diog. viii. 71 sqq.; R. P. <i>ib.</i>). He was quite positive that Empedokles -never returned to Sicily. Nothing can be more likely than that, when -wandering as an exile in the Peloponnese, he should have seized the -opportunity of joining the colony at Thourioi, which was a harbour for -many of the “sophists” of this time.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f535'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r535'>535</a>. See Chap. IV. <a href='#sec85'>§ 85</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f536'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r536'>536</a>. Lucr. i. 716 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f537'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r537'>537</a>. <cite>Poet.</cite> 1. 1447 b 18; cf. Diog. viii. 57 (R. P. 162 i).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f538'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r538'>538</a>. Diog. viii. 77 (R. P. 162); Souidas <i>s.v.</i> Ἐμπεδοκλῆς· καὶ ἔγραψε δι’ -ἐπῶν Περὶ φύσεως τῶν ὄντων βιβλία βʹ, καὶ ἔστιν ἔπη ὡς δισχίλια. It -hardly seems likely, however, that the Καθαρμοί extended to 3000 verses, -so Diels proposes to read πάντα τρισχίλια for πεντακισχίλια in Diogenes. -It is to be observed that there is no better authority than Tzetzes for -dividing the Περὶ φύσεως into three books. See Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Über die -Gedichte des Empedokles” (<cite>Berl. Sitzb.</cite></span>, 1898, pp. 396 sqq.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f539'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r539'>539</a>. Hieronymos of Rhodes declared (Diog. viii. 58) that he had met with -forty-three of these tragedies; but see Stein, pp. 5 sqq. The poem on the -Persian Wars, which Hieronymos also refers to (Diog. viii. 57), seems to -have arisen from an old corruption in the text of Arist. <cite>Probl.</cite> 929 b 16, -where Bekker still reads ἐν τοῖς Περσικοῖς. The same passage, however, is -said to occur ἐν τοῖς φυσικοῖς, in <cite>Meteor.</cite> Δ, 4. 382 a 1, though there too E -reads Περσικοῖς.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f540'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r540'>540</a>. The MSS. of Sextus have ζωῆσι βίου. Diels reads ζωῆς ἰδίου. I still -prefer Scaliger’s ζωῆς ἀβίου. Cf. fr. 15, τὸ δὴ βίοτον καλέουσι.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f541'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r541'>541</a>. The person here addressed is still Pausanias, and the speaker Empedokles. -Cf. fr. <a href='#Em.111'>111</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f542'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r542'>542</a>. No doubt mainly Parmenides.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f543'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r543'>543</a>. The sense of taste, not speech.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f544'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r544'>544</a>. Zeller in his earlier editions retained the full stop after νοῆσαι, thus -getting almost the opposite sense: “Withhold all confidence in thy bodily -senses”; but he admits in his fifth edition (p. 804, n. 2) that the context is -in favour of Stein, who put only a comma at νοῆσαι and took ἄλλων closely -with γυίων. So too Diels. The paraphrase given by Sextus (R. P. <i>ib.</i>) is -substantially right.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f545'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r545'>545</a>. There is no difficulty in the MS. διατμηθέντος if we take λόγοιο as -“discourse,” “argument” (cf. διαιρεῖν). Diels conjectures διασσηθέντος, -rendering “when their words have passed through the sieve of thy mind.” -Nor does it seem to me necessary to read χαρτά for κάρτα in the first line.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f546'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r546'>546</a>. The four elements are introduced under mythological names, for which -see below, p. 264, <a href='#f583'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 583</ins></a>. Diels is clearly right in removing the comma after -τέγγει, and rendering <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>Nestis quae lacrimis suis laticem fundit mortalibus -destinatum</i></span>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f547'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r547'>547</a>. Reading μετὰ τοῖσιν. I still think, however, that Knatz’s palaeographically -admirable conjuncture μετὰ θεοῖσιν (<i>i.e.</i> among the elements) -deserves consideration.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f548'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r548'>548</a>. Keeping ἄλλοτε with Diels.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f549'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r549'>549</a>. Reading ἄμβροτα δ’ ὅσσ’ ἴδει with Diels. For the word ἶδος, cf. frs. -62, 5; 73, 2. The reference is to the moon, etc., which are made of -solidified Air, and receive their light from the fiery hemisphere. See -below, <a href='#sec113'>§ 113</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f550'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r550'>550</a>. Reading with Blass (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Jahrb. f. kl. Phil.</cite></span>, 1883, p. 19):</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div>οὕτω μή σ’ ἀπάτη φρένα καινύτω κ.τ.λ.</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>Cf. Hesychios: καινύτω· νικάτω. This is practically what the MSS. of -Simplicius give, and Hesychios has many Empedoklean glosses.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f551'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r551'>551</a>. The “goddess” is, of course, the Muse. Cf. fr. <a href='#Em.5'>5</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f552'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r552'>552</a>. The word μονίῃ, if it is right, cannot mean “rest,” but only solitude. -There is no reason for altering περιηγέι, though Simplicius has περιγηθέι.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f553'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r553'>553</a>. The masculine καλλήσας shows that the subject cannot have been -Φιλότης; and Karsten was doubtless right in believing that Empedokles -introduced the simile of a baker here. It is in his manner to take -illustrations from human arts.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f554'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r554'>554</a>. The MSS. of Clement have ἥλιον ἀρχήν and the reading ἡλίου ἀρχήν -is a mere makeshift. Diels reads ἥλικά τ’ ἀρχήν, “the first (elements) -equal in age.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f555'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r555'>555</a>. The lines are referred to Xenophanes by Aristotle, who quotes them -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Β, 13. 294 a 21. See above, Chap. II. p. <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f556'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r556'>556</a>. I have translated Diels’s conjecture ἀπεστέγασεν δέ οἱ αὐγάς, | ἔστ’ -ἂν ἴῃ καθύπερθεν. The MSS. have ἀπεσκεύασεν and ἔστε αἶαν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f557'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r557'>557</a>. Reading στείροις with Diels, <cite>Hermes</cite>, xv. <i>loc. cit.</i></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f558'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r558'>558</a>. Retaining εἴδεος (<i>i.e.</i> ἴδεος), which is read in the MSS. of Simplicius. -Cf. above, p. 243, <a href='#f549'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 549</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f559'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r559'>559</a>. That Empedokles regarded milk as putrefied blood is stated by -Aristotle (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. An.</cite></span> Δ, 8. 777 a 7). The word πύον means <em>pus</em>. There -may be a punning allusion to πυός, “beestings,” but that has its vowel -long.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f560'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r560'>560</a>. Said of women in reference to births in the seventh and ninth -months.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f561'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r561'>561</a>. Of the membrane round the fœtus.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f562'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r562'>562</a>. Reading ἴδεα ποιπνύουσα with Diels.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f563'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r563'>563</a>. See Beare, p. 16, n. 1, where Plato, <cite>Tim.</cite> 45 b 4 (τοῦ πυρὸς ὅσον τὸ μὲν -κάειν οὐκ ἔσχεν, τὸ δὲ παρέχειν φῶς ἥμερον), is aptly quoted. Alexander -<i>ad loc.</i> understands κατὰ βηλόν to mean κατ’ οὐρανόν, which seems -improbable.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f564'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r564'>564</a>. On fr. <a href='#Em.99'>99</a>, see Beare, p. 96, n. 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f565'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r565'>565</a>. This passage is quoted by Aristotle (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Respir</cite></span>, 473 b 9), who makes -the curious mistake of taking ῥινῶν for the genitive of ῥίς instead of ῥινός. -The <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>locus classicus</i></span> on the subject of the klepsydra is <cite>Probl.</cite> 914 b 9 sqq. -(where read αὐλοῦ for ἄλλου, b 12). The klepsydra was a metal vessel -with a narrow neck (αὐλός) at the top and with a sort of strainer (ἠθμός) -pierced with holes (τρήματα, τρυπήματα) at the bottom. The passage in -the <cite>Problems</cite> just referred to attributes this theory of the phenomenon to -Anaxagoras, and we shall see later that he also made use of a similar -experiment (<a href='#sec131'>§ 131</a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f566'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r566'>566</a>. This seems to be the experiment described in <cite>Probl.</cite> 914 b 26, ἐὰν -γάρ τις αὐτῆς (τῆς κλεψύδρας) αὐτὴν τὴν κωδίαν ἐμπλήσας ὕδατος, ἐπιλαβὼν -τὸν αὐλόν, καταστρέψῃ ἐπὶ τὸν αὐλόν, οὐ φέρεται τὸ ὕδωρ διὰ τοῦ αὐλοῦ -ἐπὶ στόμα. ἀνοιχθέντος δὲ τοῦ στόματος, οὐκ εὐθὺς ἐκρεῖ κατὰ τὸν αὐλόν, -ἀλλὰ μικροτέρῳ ὕστερον, ὡς οὐκ ὂν ἐπὶ τῷ στόματι τοῦ αὐλοῦ, ἀλλ’ ὕστερον -διὰ τούτου φερόμενον ἀνοιχθέντος. The epithet δυσηχέος applied to ἰσθμοῖο -is best explained as a reference to the ἐρυγμός or “belching” referred to -at 915 a 7 as accompanying the discharge of water through the αὐλός. -Any one can produce this effect with a water-bottle. If it were not for -this epithet, it would be tempting to read ἠθμοῖο for ἰσθμοῖο. Sturz -conjectured this, and it is actually the reading of a few MSS.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f567'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r567'>567</a>. On fr. <a href='#Em.101'>101</a>, see Beare, p. 135, n. 2.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f568'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r568'>568</a>. That the reference is to dreams, we learn from Simpl. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> p. 202, -30.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f569'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r569'>569</a>. Bernays conjectured ῥῆμα, “decree,” for χρῆμα, but this is not necessary. -Necessity is an Orphic personage, and Gorgias, the disciple of Empedokles, -says θεῶν βουλεύμασιν καὶ ἀνάγκης ψηφίσμασιν (<cite>Hel.</cite> 6).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f570'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r570'>570</a>. I retain φόνῳ in v. 3 (so too Diels). The first word of v. 4 has been -lost. Diels suggests Νείκεϊ, which may well be right, and takes ἁμαρτήσας -as equivalent to ὁμαρτήσας. I have translated accordingly.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f571'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r571'>571</a>. According to Porphyry, who quotes this line (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Antro Nymph.</cite></span> 8), -these words were spoken by the “powers” who conduct the soul into -the world (ψυχοπομποὶ δυνάμεις). The “cave” is not originally Platonic -but Orphic.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f572'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r572'>572</a>. This passage is closely modelled on the Catalogue of Nymphs in <cite>Iliad</cite> -xviii. 39 sqq. Chthonie is found already in Pherekydes (Diog. i. 119).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f573'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r573'>573</a>. I have retained ἀλλόγνωτι as nearer the MSS., though a little hard to -interpret. On the subsequent history of the Orphic <em>chiton</em> in gnostic -imagery see Bernays, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Theophr. Schr.</cite></span> n. 9. It was identified with the coat -of skins made by God for Adam.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f574'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r574'>574</a>. This is the best μετοίκησις (Ael. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Nat. an.</cite></span> xii. 7).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f575'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r575'>575</a>. The dwellers in the Golden Age.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f576'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r576'>576</a>. The MSS. of Porphyry have γραπτοῖς τε ζώοισι, which is accepted by -Zeller and Diels. The emendation of Bernays (adopted in R. P.) does not -convince me. I venture to suggest μακτοῖς, on the strength of the story -related by Favorinus (<i>ap.</i> Diog. viii. 53) as to the bloodless sacrifice offered -by Empedokles at Olympia.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f577'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r577'>577</a>. These lines were already referred to Pythagoras by Timaios (Diog. -viii. 54). As we are told (Diog. <i>ib.</i>) that some referred the verses to -Parmenides, it is clear that no name was given.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f578'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r578'>578</a>. On frs. 138 and 143 see Vahlen on Arist. <cite>Poet.</cite> 21. 1547 b 13, and -Diels in <cite>Hermes</cite>, xv. p. 173.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f579'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r579'>579</a>. Cf. Emp. frs. <a href='#Em.27'>27</a>, <a href='#Em.28'>28</a>, with Parm. fr. <a href='#Pa.8'>8</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f580'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r580'>580</a>. For the history of the term στοιχεῖον see Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Elementum</cite></span>. Eudemos -said (<i>ap.</i> Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 7, 13) that Plato was the first to use it, and this is -confirmed by the way the word is introduced in <cite>Tht.</cite> 201 e. The original -term was μορφή or ἰδέα.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f581'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r581'>581</a>. Cf. Chap. I. <a href='#sec27'>§ 27</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f582'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r582'>582</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Δ, 6, 213 a 22 (R. P. 159). Aristotle only mentions -Anaxagoras by name in this passage; but he speaks in the plural, and we -know from fr. <a href='#Em.100'>100</a> that the <em>klepsydra</em> experiment was used by Empedokles.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f583'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r583'>583</a>. In antiquity the Homeric Allegorists made Hera Earth and Aidoneus -Air, a view which has found its way into Aetios from Poseidonios. It -arose as follows. The Homeric Allegorists were not interested in the -science of Empedokles, and did not see that his αἰθήρ was quite a different -thing from Homer’s ἀήρ. Now this is the dark element, and night is a -form of it, so it would naturally be identified with Aidoneus. Again, -Empedokles calls Hera φερέσβιος, and that is an old epithet of Earth in -Homer. Another view current in antiquity identified Hera with Air, -which is the theory of Plato’s <cite>Cratylus</cite>, and Aidoneus with Earth. The -Homeric Allegorists further identified Zeus with Fire, a view to which they -were doubtless led by the use of the word αἰθήρ. Now αἰθήρ certainly -means Fire in Anaxagoras, as we shall see, but there is no doubt that in -Empedokles it meant Air. It seems likely, then, that Knatz is right -(<span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“Empedoclea”</span> in <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Schedae Philologicae Hermanno Usenero oblatae</cite></span>, 1891, pp. -1 sqq.) in holding that the bright Air of Empedokles was Zeus. This leaves -Aidoneus to stand for Fire; and nothing could have been more natural for -a Sicilian poet, with the volcanoes and hot springs of his native island in -mind, than this identification. He refers to the fires that burn beneath -the Earth himself (fr. <a href='#Em.52'>52</a>). If that is so, we shall have to agree with the -Homeric Allegorists that Hera is Earth; and there is certainly no -improbability in that.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f584'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r584'>584</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> Β, 1. 329 b 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f585'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r585'>585</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> Β, 6. 333 a 16.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f586'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r586'>586</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> Α, 8. 325 b 19 (R. P. 164 e). This was so completely -misunderstood by later writers that they actually attribute to Empedokles -the doctrine of στοιχεῖα πρὸ τῶν στοιχείων (Aet. 1. 13, 1; 17, 3). The -criticism of the Pythagoreans and Plato had made the hypothesis of -elements almost unintelligible to Aristotle, and <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>a fortiori</i></span> to his successors. -As Plato put it (<cite>Tim.</cite> 48 b 8), they were “not even syllables,” let alone -“letters” (στοιχεῖα). That is why Aristotle, who derived them from -something more primary, calls them τὰ καλούμενα στοιχεῖα (Diels, -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Elementum</cite></span>, p. 25).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f587'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r587'>587</a>. We know from Menon that Philistion put the matter in this way. -See p. 235, <a href='#f527'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 527</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f588'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r588'>588</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 4. 985 a 31; <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> Β, 3. 330 b 19 (R. P. -164 e).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f589'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r589'>589</a>. Cf. Introd. § VIII.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f590'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r590'>590</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 10. 1075 b 3.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f591'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r591'>591</a>. Theophr. <cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 3 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 477); <i>ap.</i> Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 25, 21 -(R. P. 166 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f592'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r592'>592</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 4. 985 a 21; Γ, 4. 1000 a 24; b 9 (R. P. -166 i).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f593'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r593'>593</a>. Plato, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Laws</cite></span>, x. 889 b. The reference is not to Empedokles exclusively, -but the language shows that Plato is thinking mainly of him.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f594'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r594'>594</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> Β, 6. 334 a 1; <cite>Phys.</cite> Θ, 1. 252 a 5 (R. P. 166 k).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f595'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r595'>595</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> Α, 8. 324 b 34 (R. P. 166 h).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f596'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r596'>596</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> 326 b 6.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f597'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r597'>597</a>. This is the view of Zeller (pp. 785 sqq.), but he admits that the external -testimony, especially that of Aristotle, is wholly in favour of the other. -His difficulty is with the fragments, and if it can be shown that these can -be interpreted in accordance with Aristotle’s statements, the question is -settled. Aristotle was specially interested in Empedokles, and was not -likely to misrepresent him on such a point.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f598'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r598'>598</a>. Arist <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> Β, 6. 334 a 6: τὸν κόσμον ὁμοίως ἔχειν φησίν ἐπί -τε τοῦ νείκους νῦν καὶ πρότερον ἐπὶ τῆς φιλίας.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f599'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r599'>599</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Γ, 2. 301 a 14: ἐκ διεστώτων δὲ καὶ κινουμένων οὐκ -εὔλογον ποιεῖν τὴν γένεσιν. διὸ καὶ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς παραλείπει τὴν ἐπὶ τῆς -φιλότητος· οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἠδύνατο συστῆσαι τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐκ κεχωρισμένων μὲν -κατασκευάζων, σύγκρισιν δὲ ποιῶν διὰ τὴν φιλότητα· ἐκ διακεκριμένων γὰρ -συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος τῶν στοιχείων (“our world consists of the elements in -a state of separation”), ὥστ’ ἀναγκαῖον γενέσθαι ἐξ ἑνὸς καὶ συγκεκριμένου.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f600'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r600'>600</a>. It need not mean that Empedokles said nothing about the world of -Love at all; for he obviously says something of both worlds in fr. <a href='#Em.17'>17</a>. It is -enough to suppose that, having described both in general terms, he went -on to treat the world of Strife in detail.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f601'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r601'>601</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> Β, 6. 333 b 21 (R. P. 168 e); <cite>Met.</cite> Β, 4. 1000 a 29 -(R. P. 166 i). Cf. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 1124, 1 (R. P. 167 b). In other places -Aristotle speaks of it as “the One.” Cf. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> Α, 1. 315 a 7 (R. P. -168 e); <cite>Met.</cite> Β, 4. 1000 a 29 (R. P. 166 i); Α, 4. 985 a 28 (R. P. <i>ib.</i>). -This, however, involves a slight Aristotelian “development.” It is not -quite the same thing to say, as Empedokles does, that all things come together -“into one,” and to say that they come together “into the One.” -The latter expression suggests that they lose their distinct and proper -character in the Sphere, and thus become something like Aristotle’s own -“matter.” As has been pointed out (p. 265, <a href='#f586'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 586</ins></a>), it is hard for Aristotle -to grasp the conception of irreducible elements; but there can be no doubt -that in the Sphere, as in their separation, the elements remain “what they -are” for Empedokles. As Aristotle also knows quite well, the Sphere is a -mixture. Compare the difficulties about the “One” of Anaximander -discussed in Chap. I. <a href='#sec15'>§ 15</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f602'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r602'>602</a>. This accounts for Aristotle’s statement, which he makes once positively -(<cite>Met.</cite> Β, 1. 996 a 7) and once very doubtfully (<cite>Met.</cite> Γ, 4. 1001 a 12), that -Love was the substratum of the One in just the same sense as the Fire of -Herakleitos, the Air of Anaximenes, or the Water of Thales. He thinks -that all the elements become merged in Love, and so lose their identity. -In this case, it is in Love he recognises his own “matter.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f603'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r603'>603</a>. For the phrase τοῦ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα πάγου cf. Περὶ διαίτης, i. 10, 1, -πρὸς τὸν περιέχοντα πάγον. <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Et. M. s.v.</cite></span> βηλὸς ... τὸν ἀνωτάτω πάγον -καὶ περιέχοντα τὸν πάντα ἀέρα. This probably comes ultimately from -Anaximenes. Cf. Chap. I. p. 82, <a href='#f162'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 162</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f604'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r604'>604</a>. Aet. ii. 31, 4 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 363).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f605'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r605'>605</a>. Aet. ii. 11, 2 (R. P. 170 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f606'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r606'>606</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Β, 13. 295 a 16 (R. P. 170 b). The experiment with -τὸ ἐν τοῖς κυάθοις ὕδωρ, which κύκλῳ τοῦ κυάθου φερομένου πολλάκις κάτω -τοῦ χαλκοῦ γινόμενον ὅμως οὐ φέρεται κάτω, reminds us of the experiment -with the <em>klepsydra</em> in fr. <a href='#Em.100'>100</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f607'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r607'>607</a>. [Plut.] <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 10 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 582, 11; R. P. 170 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f608'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r608'>608</a>. Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Pyth. Or.</cite></span> 400 b (R. P. 170 c). We must keep the MS. -reading περὶ γῆν with Bernardakis and Diels. The reading περιαυγῆ in -R. P. is a conjecture of Wyttenbach’s; but cf. Aet. ii. 20, 13, quoted in the -next note.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f609'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r609'>609</a>. Aet. ii. 20, 13 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 350), Ἐμπεδοκλῆς δύο ἡλίους· τὸν μὲν -ἀρχέτυπον, πῦρ ὂν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τοῦ κόσμου, πεπληρωκὸς τὸ -ἡμισφαίριον, αἰεὶ κατ’ ἀντικρὺ τῇ ἀνταυγείᾳ ἑαυτοῦ τεταγμένον· τὸν -δὲ φαινόμενον, ἀνταύγειαν ἐν τῷ ἑτέρῳ ἡμισφαιρίῳ τῷ τοῦ ἀέρος τοῦ -θερμομιγοῦς πεπληρωμένῳ, ἀπὸ κυκλοτεροῦς τῆς γῆς κατ’ ἀνάκλασιν -γιγνομένην εἰς τὸν ἥλιον τὸν κρυσταλλοειδῆ, συμπεριελκομένην δὲ τῇ κινήσει -τοῦ πυρίνου. ὡς δὲ βραχέως εἰρῆσθαι συντεμόντα, ἀνταύγειαν εἶναι τοῦ -περὶ τὴν γὴν πυρὸς τὸν ἥλιον.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f610'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r610'>610</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Sensu</cite></span>, 6. 446 a 28; <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> Β, 7. 418 b 20.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f611'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r611'>611</a>. [Plut.] <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 10 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 582, 12; R. P. 170 c); Diog. viii. 77; -Aet. ii. 31, 1 (cf. <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 63).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f612'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r612'>612</a>. Aet. ii. 13, 2 and 11 (<cite>Dox.</cite> pp. 341 sqq.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f613'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r613'>613</a>. Aet. iii. 3, 7; Arist. <cite>Meteor.</cite> Β, 9. 369 b 12, with Alexander’s -commentary.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f614'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r614'>614</a>. Arist. <cite>Meteor.</cite> Β, 3. 357 a 24; Aet. iii. 16, 3 (R. P. 170 b). Cf. the -clear reference in Arist. <cite>Meteor.</cite> Β, 1. 353 b 11.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f615'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r615'>615</a>. Seneca, <cite>Q. Nat.</cite> iii. 24: <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“facere solemus dracones et miliaria et -complures formas in quibus aere tenui fistulas struimus per declive circumdatas, -ut saepe eundem ignem ambiens aqua per tantum fluat spatii -quantum efficiendo calori sat est. frigida itaque intrat, effluit calida. -idem sub terra Empedocles existimat fieri.”</span></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f616'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r616'>616</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> Β, 4. 415 b 28.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f617'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r617'>617</a>. Theophr. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>de causis plantarum</i></span>, i. 12, 5.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f618'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r618'>618</a>. [Arist.] <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de plantis</cite></span>, Α, 1. 815 a 15.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f619'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r619'>619</a>. Alfred the Englishman translated the Arabic version into Latin in -the reign of Henry III. It was retranslated from this version into Greek -at the Renaissance by a Greek resident in Italy.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f620'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r620'>620</a>. Α, 2. 817 b 35, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“mundo ... diminuto et non perfecto in complemento -suo”</span> (Alfred).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f621'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r621'>621</a>. Aet. v. 19, 5 (R. P. 173). Plato has made use of the idea of reversed -evolution in the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>Politicus</i></span> myth.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f622'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r622'>622</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Γ, 2. 300 b 29 (R. P. 173 a). Cf. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. An.</cite></span> Α, 17. -722 b 17, where fr. 57 is introduced by the words καθάπερ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς -γεννᾷ ἐπὶ τῆς Φιλότητος. Simplicius, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, p. 587, 18, expresses the -same thing by saying μουνομελῆ ἔτι τὰ γυῖα ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ Νείκους διακρίσεως -ὄντα ἐπλανᾶτο.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f623'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r623'>623</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> Γ, 6. 430 a 30 (R. P. 173 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f624'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r624'>624</a>. This is well put by Simplicius, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, p. 587, 20. It is ὅτε τοῦ -Νείκους ἐπεκράτει λοιπὸν ἡ Φιλότης ... ἐπὶ τῆς Φιλότητος οὖν ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς -ἐκεῖνα εἶπεν, οὐχ ὡς ἐπικρατούσης ἤδη τῆς Φιλότητος, ἀλλ’ ὡς μελλούσης -ἐπικρατεῖν. In <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 371, 33, he says the oxen with human heads were -κατὰ τῆν τῆς Φιλίας ἀρχήν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f625'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r625'>625</a>. Cf. Plato, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Symp.</cite></span> 189 e.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f626'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r626'>626</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Β, 8. 198 b 29 (R. P. 173 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f627'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r627'>627</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Part. An.</cite></span> Α, 1. 640 a 19.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f628'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r628'>628</a>. Aet. v. 10, 1; 11, 1; 12, 2; 14, 2. Cf. Fredrich, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Hippokratische -Untersuchungen</cite></span>, pp. 126 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f629'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r629'>629</a>. Aet. v. 15, 3; 21, 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 190).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f630'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r630'>630</a>. Aet. v. 25, 4 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 437).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f631'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r631'>631</a>. Aet. v. 19, 5 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 431). Cf. <cite>Eth. Eud.</cite> Η, 1. 1235 a 11.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f632'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r632'>632</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Respir.</cite></span> 14. 477 a 32; Theophr. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de causis plant.</cite></span> i. 21.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f633'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r633'>633</a>. Nutrition, Aet. v. 27, 1; pleasure and pain, Aet. iv. 9, 15; v. 28, 1; -tears and sweat, v. 22, 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f634'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r634'>634</a>. That is, watery vapour, not the elemental air or αἰθήρ (<a href='#sec107'>§ 107</a>). It is -identical with the “water” mentioned below. It is unnecessary, therefore, -to insert καὶ ὕδωρ after πῦρ with Karsten and Diels.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f635'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r635'>635</a>. Beare, p. 96, n. 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f636'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r636'>636</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> p. 133.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f637'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r637'>637</a>. Aet. iv. 17, 2 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 407). Beare, p. 133.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f638'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r638'>638</a>. Beare, pp. 161-3, 180-81.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f639'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r639'>639</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> pp. 95 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f640'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r640'>640</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> pp. 14 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f641'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r641'>641</a>. Theophr. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de sens.</cite></span> 26.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f642'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r642'>642</a>. The definition is quoted from Gorgias in Plato, <cite>Men.</cite> 76 d 4. All our -MSS. have ἀπορραοὶ σχημάτων, but Ven. T has in the margin γρ. -χρημάτων, which may well be an old tradition. The Ionic for “things” -is χρήματα. See Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Empedokles und Gorgias</cite></span>, p. 439.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f643'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r643'>643</a>. See Beare, <cite>Elementary Cognition</cite>, p. 18.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f644'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r644'>644</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> Γ, 3. 427 a 21.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f645'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r645'>645</a>. R. P. 178 a. This was the characteristic doctrine of the Sicilian -school, from whom it passed to Aristotle and the Stoics. Plato and -Hippokrates, on the other hand, adopted the view of Alkmaion (<a href='#sec97'>§ 97</a>) that -the brain was the seat of consciousness. Kritias (Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> Α, 2. -405 b 6) probably got the Sicilian doctrine from Gorgias. At a later date, -Philistion of Syracuse, Plato’s friend, substituted the ψυχικὸν πνεῦμα -(“animal spirits”) which circulated along with the blood.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f646'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r646'>646</a>. Beare, p. 253.</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_290'>290</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER VI <br /> ANAXAGORAS OF KLAZOMENAI</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Date.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec120'></a>120. All that Apollodoros tells us with regard to the -date of Anaxagoras seems to rest upon the authority -of Demetrios Phalereus, who said of him, in the -<cite>Register of Archons</cite>, that he began to study philosophy, -at the age of twenty, in the archonship of Kallias or -Kalliades at Athens (480-79 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>).<a id='r647' /><a href='#f647' class='c014'><sup>[647]</sup></a> This date was -probably derived from a calculation based upon the -philosopher’s age at the time of his trial, which -Demetrios had every opportunity of learning from -sources no longer extant. Apollodoros inferred that -Anaxagoras was born in Ol. LXX. (500-496 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>), -and he adds that he died at the age of seventy-two in -Ol. LXXXVIII. 1 (428-27 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>).<a id='r648' /><a href='#f648' class='c014'><sup>[648]</sup></a> He doubtless thought -it natural that he should not survive Perikles, and still -more natural that he should die the year Plato was -born.<a id='r649' /><a href='#f649' class='c014'><sup>[649]</sup></a> We have a further statement, of doubtful -origin, but probably due to Demetrios also, that -Anaxagoras lived at Athens for thirty years. This -<span class='pageno' id='Page_291'>291</span>may be a genuine tradition;<a id='r650' /><a href='#f650' class='c014'><sup>[650]</sup></a> and if so, we get -from about 462 to 432 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> as the time he lived -there.</p> - -<p class='c002'>There can be no doubt that these dates are very -nearly right. Aristotle tells us<a id='r651' /><a href='#f651' class='c014'><sup>[651]</sup></a> that Anaxagoras was -older than Empedokles, who was born about 490 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> -(<a href='#sec98'>§ 98</a>); and Theophrastos said<a id='r652' /><a href='#f652' class='c014'><sup>[652]</sup></a> that Empedokles was -born “not long after Anaxagoras.” Demokritos, too, -said that he himself was a young man in the old age -of Anaxagoras, and he must have been born about -460 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span><a id='r653' /><a href='#f653' class='c014'><sup>[653]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Early life.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec121'></a>121. Anaxagoras was born at Klazomenai, and -Theophrastos tells us that his father’s name was -Hegesiboulos.<a id='r654' /><a href='#f654' class='c014'><sup>[654]</sup></a> The names of both father and son -have an aristocratic sound, and we may assume they -belonged to a family which had won distinction in the -State. Nor need we reject the tradition that -Anaxagoras neglected his possessions to follow -science.<a id='r655' /><a href='#f655' class='c014'><sup>[655]</sup></a> It is certain, at any rate, that in the fourth -century he was already regarded as the type of the -man who leads the “theoretic life.”<a id='r656' /><a href='#f656' class='c014'><sup>[656]</sup></a> Of course the story -of his contempt for worldly goods was seized on later -<span class='pageno' id='Page_292'>292</span>by the historical novelist and tricked out with the -usual apophthegms. These do not concern us here.</p> - -<p class='c002'>One incident belonging to the early manhood of -Anaxagoras is recorded, namely, his observation of the -huge meteoric stone which fell into the Aigospotamos -in 468-67 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span><a id='r657' /><a href='#f657' class='c014'><sup>[657]</sup></a> Our authorities tell us that he predicted -this phenomenon, which is plainly absurd. But we -shall see reason to believe that it may have occasioned -one of his most striking departures from the earlier -cosmology, and led to his adoption of the very view -for which he was condemned at Athens. At all events, -the fall of the stone made a profound impression at the -time, and it was still shown to tourists in the days of -Pliny and Plutarch.<a id='r658' /><a href='#f658' class='c014'><sup>[658]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Relation to the Ionic school.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec122'></a>122. The doxographers speak of Anaxagoras as -the pupil of Anaximenes.<a id='r659' /><a href='#f659' class='c014'><sup>[659]</sup></a> This is, of course, out of -the question; Anaximenes most probably died before -Anaxagoras was born. But it is not enough to say -that the statement arose from the fact that the name of -Anaxagoras followed that of Anaximenes in the -<cite>Successions</cite>. That is true, no doubt; but it is not the -whole truth. We have its original source in a fragment -of Theophrastos himself, which states that Anaxagoras -had been “an associate of the philosophy of Anaximenes.”<a id='r660' /><a href='#f660' class='c014'><sup>[660]</sup></a> -<span class='pageno' id='Page_293'>293</span>Now this expression has a very distinct -meaning if we accept the view as to “schools” of -science set forth in the Introduction (§ XIV.). It means -that the old Ionic school survived the destruction of -Miletos in 494 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, and continued to flourish in -the other cities of Asia. It means, further, that it -produced no man of distinction after its third great representative, -and that “the philosophy of Anaximenes” -was still taught by whoever was now at the head of -the society.</p> - -<p class='c002'>At this point, it may be well to indicate briefly the -conclusions to which we shall come in the next few -chapters with regard to the development of philosophy -during the first half of the fifth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> We shall -find that, while the old Ionic school was still capable -of training great men, it was now powerless to keep -them. Anaxagoras went his own way; Melissos -and Leukippos, though they still retained enough of -the old views to bear witness to the source of their -inspiration, were too strongly influenced by the Eleatic -dialectic to remain content with the theories of Anaximenes. -It was left to second-rate minds like -Diogenes to champion the orthodox system, while -third-rate minds like Hippon of Samos even went -back to the cruder theory of Thales. The details of -this anticipatory sketch will become clearer as we go -on; for the present, it is only necessary to call the -reader’s attention to the fact that the old Ionic Philosophy -now forms a sort of background to our story, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_294'>294</span>just as Orphic and Pythagorean religious ideas have -done in the preceding chapters.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Anaxagoras at Athens.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec123'></a>123. Anaxagoras was the first philosopher to take -up his abode at Athens. We are not to suppose, -however, that he was attracted thither by anything in -the character of the Athenians. No doubt Athens -had now become the political centre of the Hellenic -world; but it had not yet produced a single scientific -man. On the contrary, the temper of the citizen body -was and remained hostile to free inquiry of any kind. -Sokrates, Anaxagoras, and Aristotle fell victims in -different degrees to the bigotry of the democracy, -though, of course, their offence was political rather -than religious. They were condemned not as heretics, -but as innovators in the <em>state</em> religion. Still, as a -recent historian observes, “Athens in its flourishing -period was far from being a place for free inquiry to -thrive unchecked.”<a id='r661' /><a href='#f661' class='c014'><sup>[661]</sup></a> It is this, no doubt, that has -been in the minds of those writers who have represented -philosophy as something un-Greek. It was in reality -thoroughly Greek, though it was thoroughly un-Athenian.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It seems most reasonable to suppose that Perikles -himself brought Anaxagoras to Athens, just as he -brought everything else he could. Holm has shown -with much skill how the aim of that great statesman -was, so to say, to Ionise his fellow-citizens, to impart -to them something of the flexibility and openness of -mind which characterised their kinsmen across the -sea. It is possible that it was Aspasia of Miletos who -introduced the Ionian philosopher to the Periklean -<span class='pageno' id='Page_295'>295</span>circle, of which he was henceforth a chief ornament. The -Athenians in derision gave him the nickname of Nous.<a id='r662' /><a href='#f662' class='c014'><sup>[662]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The close relation in which Anaxagoras stood to -Perikles is placed beyond the reach of doubt by the -testimony of Plato. In the <cite>Phaedrus</cite><a id='r663' /><a href='#f663' class='c014'><sup>[663]</sup></a> he makes -Sokrates say: “For all arts that are great, there is -need of talk and discussion on the parts of natural -science that deal with things on high; for that seems -to be the source which inspires high-mindedness and -effectiveness in every direction. Perikles added this -very acquirement to his original gifts. He fell in, it -seems, with Anaxagoras, who was a scientific man; -and, satiating himself with the theory of things on high, -and having attained to a knowledge of the true nature -of intellect and folly, which were just what the discourses -of Anaxagoras were mainly about, he drew -from that source whatever was of a nature to further -him in the art of speech.”</p> - -<p class='c002'>A more difficult question is the alleged relation of -Euripides to Anaxagoras. The oldest authority for -it is Alexander of Aitolia, poet and librarian, who -lived at the court of Ptolemy Philadelphos (<i>c.</i> 280 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>). -He referred to Euripides as the “nursling of brave -Anaxagoras.”<a id='r664' /><a href='#f664' class='c014'><sup>[664]</sup></a> A great deal of ingenuity has been -expended in trying to find the system of Anaxagoras -in the choruses of Euripides; but, it must now be -admitted, without result.<a id='r665' /><a href='#f665' class='c014'><sup>[665]</sup></a> The famous fragment on -<span class='pageno' id='Page_296'>296</span>the blessedness of the scientific life might just as well -refer to any other cosmologist as to Anaxagoras, and -indeed suggests more naturally a thinker of a more -primitive type.<a id='r666' /><a href='#f666' class='c014'><sup>[666]</sup></a> On the other hand, there is one -fragment which distinctly expounds the central thought -of Anaxagoras, and could hardly be referred to any -one else.<a id='r667' /><a href='#f667' class='c014'><sup>[667]</sup></a> We may conclude, then, that Euripides -knew the philosopher and his views, but it is not safe -to go further.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The trial.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec124'></a>124. Shortly before the outbreak of the Peloponnesian -War, the enemies of Perikles began a series of -attacks upon him through his friends.<a id='r668' /><a href='#f668' class='c014'><sup>[668]</sup></a> Pheidias was -the first to suffer, and Anaxagoras was the next. That -he was an object of special hatred to the religious -party need not surprise us, even though the charge -made against him does not suggest that he went out -of his way to hurt their susceptibilities. The details -of the trial are somewhat obscure, but we can make -out a few points. The first step taken was the introduction -of a psephism by Diopeithes—the same whom -Aristophanes laughs at in <cite>The Birds</cite><a id='r669' /><a href='#f669' class='c014'><sup>[669]</sup></a>—enacting that an -impeachment should be brought against those who did -not practise religion, and taught theories about “the -things on high.”<a id='r670' /><a href='#f670' class='c014'><sup>[670]</sup></a> What happened at the actual trial -is very differently related. Our authorities give -<span class='pageno' id='Page_297'>297</span>hopelessly conflicting accounts.<a id='r671' /><a href='#f671' class='c014'><sup>[671]</sup></a> It is no use attempting -to reconcile these; it is enough to insist upon what is -certain. Now we know from Plato what the accusation -was.<a id='r672' /><a href='#f672' class='c014'><sup>[672]</sup></a> It was that Anaxagoras taught the sun was a -red-hot stone, and the moon earth; and we shall see -that he certainly did hold these views (<a href='#sec133'>§ 133</a>). For -the rest, the most plausible account is that he was got -out of prison and sent away by Perikles.<a id='r673' /><a href='#f673' class='c014'><sup>[673]</sup></a> We know -that such things were possible at Athens.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Driven from his adopted home, Anaxagoras -naturally went back to Ionia, where at least he would -be free to teach what he pleased. He settled at -Lampsakos, and we shall see reason to believe that he -founded a school there.<a id='r674' /><a href='#f674' class='c014'><sup>[674]</sup></a> Probably he did not live -long after his exile. The Lampsakenes erected an -altar to his memory in their market-place, dedicated to -Mind and Truth; and the anniversary of his death was -long kept as a holiday for school-children, it was said -at his own request.<a id='r675' /><a href='#f675' class='c014'><sup>[675]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Writings.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_298'>298</span><a id='sec125'></a>125. Diogenes includes Anaxagoras in his list of -philosophers who left only a single book, and he has -also preserved the accepted criticism of it, namely, that -it was written “in a lofty and agreeable style.”<a id='r676' /><a href='#f676' class='c014'><sup>[676]</sup></a> -There is no evidence of any weight to set against this -testimony, which comes ultimately from the librarians -of Alexandria.<a id='r677' /><a href='#f677' class='c014'><sup>[677]</sup></a> The story that Anaxagoras wrote a -treatise on perspective as applied to scene-painting is -most improbable;<a id='r678' /><a href='#f678' class='c014'><sup>[678]</sup></a> and the statement that he composed -a mathematical work dealing with the quadrature -of the circle is due to misunderstanding of an expression -in Plutarch.<a id='r679' /><a href='#f679' class='c014'><sup>[679]</sup></a> We learn from the passage in -the <cite>Apology</cite>, referred to above, that the works of -Anaxagoras could be bought at Athens for a single -drachma; and that the book was of some length may -be gathered from the way in which Plato goes on to -speak of it.<a id='r680' /><a href='#f680' class='c014'><sup>[680]</sup></a> In the sixth century <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> Simplicius had -access to a copy, doubtless in the library of the -Academy;<a id='r681' /><a href='#f681' class='c014'><sup>[681]</sup></a> and it is to him we owe the preservation -of all our fragments, with one or two very doubtful -<span class='pageno' id='Page_299'>299</span>exceptions. Unfortunately his quotations seem to be -confined to the First Book, that dealing with general -principles, so that we are left somewhat in the dark -with regard to the treatment of details. This is the -more unfortunate, as it was Anaxagoras who first gave -the true theory of the moon’s light and, therefore, the -true theory of eclipses.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Fragments.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec126'></a>126. I give the fragments according to the text and -arrangement of Diels, who has made some of them -completely intelligible for the first time.</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.1'></a>(1) All things were together infinite both in number and -in smallness; for the small too was infinite. And, when all -things were together, none of them could be distinguished for -their smallness. For air and aether prevailed over all things, -being both of them infinite; for amongst all things these are -the greatest both in quantity and size.<a id='r682' /><a href='#f682' class='c014'><sup>[682]</sup></a> R. P. 151.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.2'></a>(2) For air and aether are separated off from the mass -that surrounds the world, and the surrounding mass is infinite -in quantity. R. P. <i>ib.</i></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.3'></a>(3) Nor is there a least of what is small, but there is always -a smaller; for it cannot be that what is should cease to be by -being cut.<a id='r683' /><a href='#f683' class='c014'><sup>[683]</sup></a> But there is also always something greater than -what is great, and it is equal to the small in amount, and, -compared with itself, each thing is both great and small. -R. P. 159 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.4'></a>(4) And since these things are so, we must suppose that -there are contained many things and of all sorts in the things -that are uniting, seeds of all things, with all sorts of shapes -and colours and savours (R. P. <i>ib.</i>), and that men have been -formed in them, and the other animals that have life, and -that these men have inhabited cities and cultivated fields as -<span class='pageno' id='Page_300'>300</span>with us; and that they have a sun and a moon and the rest as -with us; and that their earth brings forth for them many -things of all kinds of which they gather the best together -into their dwellings, and use them (R. P. 160 b). Thus -much have I said with regard to separating off, to show that -it will not be only with us that things are separated off, but -elsewhere too.</p> - -<p class='c002'>But before they were separated off, when all things were -together, not even was any colour distinguishable; for the -mixture of all things prevented it—of the moist and the dry, -and the warm and the cold, and the light and the dark, and -of much earth that was in it, and of a multitude of innumerable -seeds in no way like each other. For none of the -other things either is like any other. And these things being -so, we must hold that all things are in the whole. R. P. 151.<a id='r684' /><a href='#f684' class='c014'><sup>[684]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.5'></a>(5) And those things having been thus decided, we must -know that all of them are neither more nor less; for it is not -possible for them to be more than all, and all are always equal. -R. P. 151.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.6'></a>(6) And since the portions of the great and of the small -are equal in amount, for this reason, too, all things will be in -everything; nor is it possible for them to be apart, but all -things have a portion of everything. Since it is impossible -for there to be a least thing, they cannot be separated, nor -come to be by themselves; but they must be now, just as they -were in the beginning, all together. And in all things many -things are contained, and an equal number both in the greater -and in the smaller of the things that are separated off.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(7) ... So that we cannot know the number of the things -that are separated off, either in word or deed.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.8'></a>(8) The things that are in one world are not divided nor -cut off from one another with a hatchet, neither the warm -from the cold nor the cold from the warm. R. P. 155 e.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.9'></a>(9) ... as these things revolve and are separated out by -the force and swiftness. And the swiftness makes the force. -Their swiftness is not like the swiftness of any of the things -<span class='pageno' id='Page_301'>301</span>that are now among men, but in every way many times as -swift.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.10'></a>(10) How can hair come from what is not hair, or flesh -from what is not flesh? R. P. 155 f, n. 1.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.11'></a>(11) In everything there is a portion of everything except -Nous, and there are some things in which there is Nous also. -R. P. 160 b.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.12'></a>(12) All other things partake in a portion of everything, -while Nous is infinite and self-ruled, and is mixed with -nothing, but is alone, itself by itself. For if it were not by -itself, but were mixed with anything else, it would partake in -all things if it were mixed with any; for in everything there is -a portion of everything, as has been said by me in what goes -before, and the things mixed with it would hinder it, so that it -would have power over nothing in the same way that it has -now being alone by itself. For it is the thinnest of all things -and the purest, and it has all knowledge about everything -and the greatest strength; and Nous has power over all things, -both greater and smaller, that have life. And Nous had -power over the whole revolution, so that it began to revolve in -the beginning. And it began to revolve first from a small -beginning; but the revolution now extends over a larger space, -and will extend over a larger still. And all the things that are -mingled together and separated off and distinguished are all -known by Nous. And Nous set in order all things that were -to be, and all things that were and are not now and that are, -and this revolution in which now revolve the stars and the sun -and the moon, and the air and the aether that are separated off. -And this revolution caused the separating off, and the rare is -separated off from the dense, the warm from the cold, the light -from the dark, and the dry from the moist. And there are many -portions in many things. But no thing is altogether separated -off nor distinguished from anything else except Nous. And all -Nous is alike, both the greater and the smaller; while nothing -else is like anything else, but each single thing is and was most -manifestly those things of which it has most in it R. P. 155.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.13'></a>(13) And when Nous began to move things, separating off -took place from all that was moved, and so far as Nous set in -motion all was separated. And as things were set in motion -<span class='pageno' id='Page_302'>302</span>and separated, the revolution caused them to be separated -much more.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(14) And Nous, which ever is, is certainly there, where -everything else is, in the surrounding mass, and in what has -been united with it and separated off from it.<a id='r685' /><a href='#f685' class='c014'><sup>[685]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.15'></a>(15) The dense and the moist and the cold and the dark -came together where the earth is now, while the rare and the -warm and the dry (and the bright) went out towards the -further part of the aether.<a id='r686' /><a href='#f686' class='c014'><sup>[686]</sup></a> R. P. 156.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.16'></a>(16) From these as they are separated off earth is solidified; -for from mists water is separated off, and from water earth. -From the earth stones are solidified by the cold, and these rush -outwards more than water. R. P. 156.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.17'></a>(17) The Hellenes follow a wrong usage in speaking of -coming into being and passing away; for nothing comes into -being or passes away, but there is mingling and separation of -things that are. So they would be right to call coming into -being mixture, and passing away separation. R. P. 150.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(18) It is the sun that puts brightness into the moon.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(19) We call rainbow the reflexion of the sun in the clouds. -Now it is a sign of storm; for the water that flows round the -cloud causes wind or pours down in rain.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(20) With the rise of the Dogstar men begin the harvest; -with its setting they begin to till the fields. It is hidden -for forty days and nights.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.21'></a>(21) From the weakness of our senses we are not able to -judge the truth.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='An.21a'></a>(21<i>a</i>) What appears is a vision of the unseen.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(21<i>b</i>) (We can make use of the lower animals) because we -use our own experience and memory and wisdom and art.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(22) What is called “birds’ milk” is the white of the egg.</p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>Anaxagoras and his predecessors.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec127'></a>127. The system of Anaxagoras, like that of -Empedokles, aimed at reconciling the Eleatic doctrine -that corporeal substance is unchangeable with the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_303'>303</span>existence of a world which everywhere presents the -appearance of coming into being and passing away. -The conclusions of Parmenides are frankly accepted and -restated. Nothing can be added to all things; for there -cannot be more than all, and all is always equal (fr. <a href='#An.5'>5</a>). -Nor can anything pass away. What men commonly -call coming into being and passing away is really -mixture and separation (fr. <a href='#An.17'>17</a>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>This last fragment reads almost like a prose paraphrase -of Empedokles (fr. <a href='#Em.9'>9</a>); and it is in every way -probable that Anaxagoras derived his theory of -mixture from his younger contemporary, whose poem -was most likely published before his own treatise.<a id='r687' /><a href='#f687' class='c014'><sup>[687]</sup></a> We -have seen how Empedokles sought to save the world -of appearance by maintaining that the opposites—hot -and cold, moist and dry—were <em>things</em>, each one of -which was real in the Parmenidean sense. Anaxagoras -regarded this as inadequate. Everything changes into -everything else,<a id='r688' /><a href='#f688' class='c014'><sup>[688]</sup></a> the things of which the world is made -are not “cut off with a hatchet” (fr. <a href='#An.8'>8</a>) in this way. -On the contrary, the true formula must be: <em>There is a -portion of everything in everything</em> (fr. <a href='#An.11'>11</a>).</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>“Everything in everything.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec128'></a>128. A part of the argument by which Anaxagoras -sought to prove this point has been preserved in a -corrupt form by Aetios, and Diels has recovered some -of the original words from the scholiast on St. Gregory -Nazianzene. “We use a simple nourishment,” he said, -“when we eat the fruit of Demeter or drink water. But -how can hair be made of what is not hair, or flesh of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_304'>304</span>what is not flesh?” (fr. <a href='#An.10'>10</a>).<a id='r689' /><a href='#f689' class='c014'><sup>[689]</sup></a> That is just the sort of -question the early Milesians must have asked, only the -physiological interest has now definitely replaced the -meteorological. We shall find a similar train of -reasoning in Diogenes of Apollonia (fr. 2).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The statement that there is a portion of everything -in everything, is not to be understood as referring -simply to the original mixture of things before the -formation of the worlds (fr. <a href='#An.1'>1</a>). On the contrary, even -now “all things are together,” and everything, however -small and however great, has an equal number of -“portions” (fr. <a href='#An.6'>6</a>). A smaller particle of matter could -only contain a smaller number of portions, if one of -those portions ceased to be; but if anything <em>is</em>, in the -full Parmenidean sense, it is impossible that mere -division should make it cease to be (fr. <a href='#An.3'>3</a>). Matter is -infinitely divisible; for there is no least thing, any -more than there is a greatest. But however great or -small a body may be, it contains just the same number -of “portions,” that is, a portion of everything.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The portions.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec129'></a>129. What are these “things” of which everything -contains a portion? It once was usual to represent the -theory of Anaxagoras as if he had said that wheat, for -instance, contained small particles of flesh, blood, bones, -and the like; but we have just seen that matter is -infinitely divisible (fr. <a href='#An.3'>3</a>), and that there are as many -“portions” in the smallest particle as in the greatest -(fr. <a href='#An.6'>6</a>). This is fatal to the old view. If everything -were made up of minute particles of everything else, -we could certainly arrive at a point where everything -was “unmixed,” if only we carried division far enough.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_305'>305</span>This difficulty can only be solved in one way.<a id='r690' /><a href='#f690' class='c014'><sup>[690]</sup></a> In -fr. <a href='#An.8'>8</a> the examples given of things which are not “cut -off from one another with a hatchet” are the hot and -the cold; and elsewhere (frs. <a href='#An.4'>4</a>, <a href='#An.15'>15</a>), mention is made of -the other traditional “opposites.” Aristotle says that, if -we suppose the first principles to be infinite, they may -either be one in kind, as with Demokritos, or opposite.<a id='r691' /><a href='#f691' class='c014'><sup>[691]</sup></a> -Simplicius, following Porphyry and Themistios, refers -the latter view to Anaxagoras;<a id='r692' /><a href='#f692' class='c014'><sup>[692]</sup></a> and Aristotle himself -implies that the opposites of Anaxagoras had as much -right to be called first principles as the “homoeomeries.”<a id='r693' /><a href='#f693' class='c014'><sup>[693]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>It is of those opposites, then, and not of the different -forms of matter, that everything contains a portion. -Every particle, however large or however small, -contains every one of those opposite qualities. That -which is hot is also to a certain extent cold. Even -snow, Anaxagoras affirmed, was black;<a id='r694' /><a href='#f694' class='c014'><sup>[694]</sup></a> that is, even -the white contains a certain portion of the opposite -quality. It is enough to indicate the connexion of -this with the views of Herakleitos (<a href='#sec80'>§ 80</a>).<a id='r695' /><a href='#f695' class='c014'><sup>[695]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Seeds.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_306'>306</span><a id='sec130'></a>130. The difference, then, between the theory of -Anaxagoras and that of Empedokles is this. Empedokles -had taught that, if you divide the various things -which make up this world, and in particular the parts -of the body, such as flesh, bones, and the like, far -enough, you come to the four “roots” or elements, -which are, accordingly, the ultimate reality. Anaxagoras -held that, however far you may divide any of -these things—and they are infinitely divisible—you -never come to a part so small that it does not contain -portions of all the opposites. The smallest portion of -bone is still bone. On the other hand, everything can -pass into everything else just because the “seeds,” as -he called them, of each form of matter contain a -portion of everything, that is, of all the opposites, though -in different proportions. If we are to use the word -“element” at all, it is these seeds that are the elements -in the system of Anaxagoras.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Aristotle expresses this by saying that Anaxagoras -regards the ὁμοιομερῆ as στοιχεῖα.<a id='r696' /><a href='#f696' class='c014'><sup>[696]</sup></a> We have seen -that the term στοιχεῖον is of later date than Anaxagoras, -and it is natural to suppose that the word ὁμοιομερῆ is -also only Aristotle’s name for the “seeds.” In his own -system, the ὁμοιομερῆ are intermediate between the -elements (στοιχεῖα), of which they are composed, and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_307'>307</span>the organs (ὄργανα), which are composed of them. -The heart cannot be divided into hearts, but the parts -of flesh are flesh. That being so, Aristotle’s statement -is quite intelligible from his own point of view, but there -is no reason for supposing that Anaxagoras expressed -himself in that particular way. All we are entitled to -infer is that he said the “seeds,” which he had substituted -for the “roots” of Empedokles, were not the -opposites in a state of separation, but each contained a -portion of them all. If Anaxagoras had used the -term “homoeomeries”<a id='r697' /><a href='#f697' class='c014'><sup>[697]</sup></a> himself, it would be strange -that Simplicius should quote no fragment containing it.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The difference between the two systems may also -be regarded from another point of view. Anaxagoras -was not obliged by his theory to regard the elements -of Empedokles as primary, a view to which there were -obvious objections, especially in the case of earth. He -explained them in quite another way. Though everything -has a portion of everything in it, things appear to -be that of which there is most in them (fr. <a href='#An.12'>12</a> <i>sub fin.</i>). -We may say, then, that Air is that in which there is most -cold, Fire that in which there is most heat, and so on, -without giving up the view that there is a portion of -cold in the fire and a portion of heat in the air.<a id='r698' /><a href='#f698' class='c014'><sup>[698]</sup></a> The -great masses which Empedokles had taken for elements -are really vast collections of all manner of “seeds.” -Each of them is, in fact, a πανσπερμία.<a id='r699' /><a href='#f699' class='c014'><sup>[699]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>“All things together.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_308'>308</span><a id='sec131'></a>131. From all this it follows that, when “all things -were together,” and when the different seeds of things -were mixed together in infinitely small particles (fr. <a href='#An.1'>1</a>), -the appearance presented would be that of one of what -had hitherto been regarded as the primary substances. -As a matter of fact, they did present the appearance -of “air and aether”; for the qualities (things) which -belong to these prevail in quantity over all other -things in the universe, and everything is most obviously -that of which it has most in it (fr. <a href='#An.12'>12</a> <i>sub fin.</i>). Here, -then, Anaxagoras attaches himself to Anaximenes. -The primary condition of things, before the formation -of the worlds, is much the same in both; only, with -Anaxagoras, the original mass is no longer the primary -substance, but a mixture of innumerable seeds divided -into infinitely small parts.</p> - -<p class='c002'>This mass is infinite, like the air of Anaximenes, -and it supports itself, since there is nothing surrounding -it.<a id='r700' /><a href='#f700' class='c014'><sup>[700]</sup></a> Further, the “seeds” of all things which it -contains are infinite in number (fr. <a href='#An.1'>1</a>). But, as the -innumerable seeds may be divided into those in which -the portions of cold, moist, dense, and dark prevail, and -those which have most of the warm, dry, rare, and -light in them, we may say that the original mass was -a mixture of infinite Air and of infinite Fire. The -seeds of Air, of course, contain “portions” of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_309'>309</span>“things” that predominate in Fire, and <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>vice versa</i></span>; but -we regard everything as being that of which it has -most in it. Lastly, there is no void in this mixture, -an addition to the theory made necessary by the -arguments of Parmenides. It is, however, worthy of -note that Anaxagoras added an experimental proof of -this to the purely dialectical one of the Eleatics. He -used the <em>klepsydra</em> experiment as Empedokles had -done (fr. <a href='#Em.100'>100</a>), and also showed the corporeal nature of -air by means of inflated skins.<a id='r701' /><a href='#f701' class='c014'><sup>[701]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Nous.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec132'></a>132. Like Empedokles, Anaxagoras required some -external cause to produce motion in the mixture. -Body, Parmenides had shown, would never move -itself, as the Milesians had supposed. Anaxagoras -called the cause of motion by the name of Nous. It -was this which made Aristotle say that he “stood out -like a sober man from the random talkers that had -preceded him,”<a id='r702' /><a href='#f702' class='c014'><sup>[702]</sup></a> and he has often been credited with -the introduction of the spiritual into philosophy. The -disappointment expressed both by Plato and Aristotle -as to the way in which Anaxagoras worked out the -theory should, however, make us pause to reflect before -accepting too exalted a view of it. Plato<a id='r703' /><a href='#f703' class='c014'><sup>[703]</sup></a> makes -Sokrates say: “I once heard a man reading a book, -as he said, of Anaxagoras, and saying it was Mind -that ordered the world and was the cause of all things. -I was delighted to hear of this cause, and I thought he -really was right.... But my extravagant expectations -<span class='pageno' id='Page_310'>310</span>were all dashed to the ground when I went on and -found that the man made no use of Mind at all. He -ascribed no causal power whatever to it in the ordering -of things, but to airs, and aethers, and waters, and a -host of other strange things.” Aristotle, probably -with this passage in mind, says:<a id='r704' /><a href='#f704' class='c014'><sup>[704]</sup></a> “Anaxagoras uses -Mind as a <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>deus ex machina</i></span> to account for the formation -of the world; and whenever he is at a loss to explain -why anything necessarily is, he drags it in. But in -other cases he makes anything rather than Mind the -cause.” These utterances may well suggest that the -Nous of Anaxagoras did not really stand on a higher -level than the Love and Strife of Empedokles, and this -will only be confirmed when we look at what he -himself has to say about it.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In the first place, Nous is unmixed (fr. <a href='#An.12'>12</a>), and -does not, like other things, contain a portion of everything. -This would hardly be worth saying of an -immaterial mind; no one would suppose that to be -hot or cold. The result of its being unmixed is that -it “has power over” everything, that is to say, in the -language of Anaxagoras, it causes things to move.<a id='r705' /><a href='#f705' class='c014'><sup>[705]</sup></a> -Herakleitos had said as much of Fire, and Empedokles -of Strife. Further, it is the “thinnest” of all things, -so that it can penetrate everywhere, and it would be -meaningless to say that the immaterial is “thinner” -than the material. It is true that Nous also “knows -<span class='pageno' id='Page_311'>311</span>all things”; but so, perhaps, did the Fire of -Herakleitos,<a id='r706' /><a href='#f706' class='c014'><sup>[706]</sup></a> and certainly the Air of Diogenes.<a id='r707' /><a href='#f707' class='c014'><sup>[707]</sup></a> -Zeller holds, indeed, that Anaxagoras meant to speak -of something incorporeal; but he admits that he did -not succeed in doing so,<a id='r708' /><a href='#f708' class='c014'><sup>[708]</sup></a> and that is historically the -important point. Nous is certainly imagined as -occupying space; for we hear of greater and smaller -parts of it (fr. <a href='#An.12'>12</a>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The truth probably is that Anaxagoras substituted -Nous for the Love and Strife of Empedokles, because -he wished to retain the old Ionic doctrine of a -substance that “knows” all things, and to identify -this with the new theory of a substance that “moves” -all things. Perhaps, too, it was his increased interest in -physiological as distinguished from purely cosmological -matters that led him to speak of Mind rather than -Soul. The former word certainly suggests design -more clearly than the latter. But, in any case, the -originality of Anaxagoras lies far more in the theory -of matter than in that of Nous.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Formation of the worlds.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec133'></a>133. The formation of a world starts with a -rotatory motion which Nous imparts to a portion of -the mixed mass in which “all things are together” -(fr. <a href='#An.13'>13</a>), and this rotatory motion gradually extends -over a wider and wider space. Its rapidity (fr. <a href='#An.9'>9</a>) -produced a separation of the rare and the dense, the -cold and the hot, the dark and the light, the moist and -the dry (fr. <a href='#An.15'>15</a>). This separation produces two great -masses, the one consisting of the rare, hot, light, and -dry, called the “Aether”; the other, in which the -opposite qualities predominate, called “Air” (fr. <a href='#An.1'>1</a>). -<span class='pageno' id='Page_312'>312</span>Of these the Aether or Fire<a id='r709' /><a href='#f709' class='c014'><sup>[709]</sup></a> took the outside while -the Air occupied the centre (fr. <a href='#An.15'>15</a>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The next stage is the separation of the air into -clouds, water, earth, and stones (fr. <a href='#An.16'>16</a>). In this -Anaxagoras follows Anaximenes closely. In his -account of the origin of the heavenly bodies, however, -he showed himself more original. We read at the -end of fr. <a href='#An.16'>16</a> that stones “rush outwards more than -water,” and we learn from the doxographers that the -heavenly bodies were explained as stones torn from -the earth by the rapidity of its revolution and made -red-hot by the speed of their own motion.<a id='r710' /><a href='#f710' class='c014'><sup>[710]</sup></a> Perhaps -the fall of the meteoric stone at Aigospotamoi had -something to do with the origin of this theory. It -may also be observed that, while in the earlier stages -of the world-formation we are guided chiefly by the -analogy of water rotating with light and heavy bodies -floating in it, we are here reminded rather of a sling.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Innumerable worlds.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec134'></a>134. That Anaxagoras adopted the ordinary Ionian -theory of innumerable worlds is perfectly clear from -fr. <a href='#An.4'>4</a>, which we have no right to regard as other than -continuous.<a id='r711' /><a href='#f711' class='c014'><sup>[711]</sup></a> The words “that it was not only with -us that things were separated off, but elsewhere too” -can only mean that Nous has caused a rotatory -movement in more parts of the boundless mixture than -one. Aetios certainly includes Anaxagoras among -those who held there was only one world; but this -testimony cannot be considered of the same weight as -<span class='pageno' id='Page_313'>313</span>that of the fragments.<a id='r712' /><a href='#f712' class='c014'><sup>[712]</sup></a> Zeller’s reference of the words -“elsewhere, as with us” to the moon is very improbable. -Is it likely that any one would say that -the inhabitants of the moon “have a sun and moon -as with us”?<a id='r713' /><a href='#f713' class='c014'><sup>[713]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec135'></a>135. The cosmology of Anaxagoras is clearly based -upon that of Anaximenes, as will be obvious from -a comparison of the following passage of Hippolytos<a id='r714' /><a href='#f714' class='c014'><sup>[714]</sup></a> -with the quotations given in Chap. I. (<a href='#sec29'>§ 29</a>):—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>(3) The earth is flat in shape, and remains suspended -because of its size and because there is no vacuum.<a id='r715' /><a href='#f715' class='c014'><sup>[715]</sup></a> For this -reason the air is very strong, and supports the earth which is -borne up by it.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(4) Of the moisture on the surface of the earth, the sea -arose from the waters in the earth (for when these were -evaporated the remainder turned salt),<a id='r716' /><a href='#f716' class='c014'><sup>[716]</sup></a> and from the rivers -which flow into it.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(5) Rivers take their being both from the rains and from the -waters in the earth; for the earth is hollow and has waters in -its cavities. And the Nile rises in summer owing to the water -that comes down from the snows in Ethiopia.<a id='r717' /><a href='#f717' class='c014'><sup>[717]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_314'>314</span>(6) The sun and the moon and all the stars are fiery stones -carried round by the rotation of the aether. Under the stars -are the sun and moon, and also certain bodies which revolve -with them, but are invisible to us.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(7) We do not feel the heat of the stars because of the -greatness of their distance from the earth; and, further, they -are not so warm as the sun, because they occupy a colder -region. The moon is below the sun, and nearer us.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(8) The sun surpasses the Peloponnesos in size. The -moon has not a light of her own, but gets it from the sun. -The course of the stars goes under the earth.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(9) The moon is eclipsed by the earth screening the sun’s -light from it, and sometimes, too, by the bodies below the moon -coming before it. The sun is eclipsed at the new moon, when -the moon screens it from us. Both the sun and the moon turn -in their courses owing to the repulsion of the air. The moon -turns frequently, because it cannot prevail over the cold.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(10) Anaxagoras was the first to determine what concerns -the eclipses and the illumination of the sun and moon. -And he said the moon was of earth, and had plains and -ravines in it. The Milky Way was the reflexion of the -light of the stars that were not illuminated by the sun. -Shooting stars were sparks, as it were, which leapt out owing -to the motion of the heavenly vault.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(11) Winds arose when the air was rarefied by the sun, and -when things were burned and made their way to the vault of -heaven and were carried off. Thunder and lightning were -produced by heat striking upon clouds.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(12) Earthquakes were caused by the air above striking on -that beneath the earth; for the movement of the latter caused -the earth which floats on it to rock.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>All this confirms in the most striking way the statement -of Theophrastos, that Anaxagoras had belonged to -the school of Anaximenes. The flat earth floating on -the air, the dark bodies below the moon, the explanation -of the solstices and the “turnings” of the moon by the -resistance of air, the explanations given of wind and of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_315'>315</span>thunder and lightning, are all derived from the earlier -inquirer.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Biology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec136'></a>136. “There is a portion of everything in everything -except Nous, and there are some things in which -there is Nous also” (fr. <a href='#An.11'>11</a>). In these words Anaxagoras -laid down the distinction between animate and -inanimate things. He tells us that it is the same Nous -that “has power over,” that is, sets in motion, all things -that have life, both the greater and the smaller (fr. <a href='#An.12'>12</a>). -The Nous in living creatures is the same in all (fr. <a href='#An.12'>12</a>), -and from this it followed that the different grades of -intelligence which we observe in the animal and -vegetable worlds depend entirely on the structure of the -body. The Nous was the same, but it had more -opportunities in one body than another. Man was the -wisest of animals, not because he had a better sort of -Nous, but simply because he had hands.<a id='r718' /><a href='#f718' class='c014'><sup>[718]</sup></a> This view is -quite in accordance with the previous development of -thought upon the subject. Parmenides, in the Second -Part of his poem (fr. <a href='#Pa.16'>16</a>), had already made the thought -of men depend upon the constitution of their limbs.</p> - -<p class='c002'>As all Nous is the same, we are not surprised to -find that plants were regarded as living creatures. If -we may trust the pseudo-Aristotelian <cite>Treatise on -Plants</cite><a id='r719' /><a href='#f719' class='c014'><sup>[719]</sup></a> so far, Anaxagoras argued that they must feel -pleasure and pain in connexion with their growth and -with the fall of their leaves. Plutarch says<a id='r720' /><a href='#f720' class='c014'><sup>[720]</sup></a> that he -called plants “animals fixed in the earth.”</p> - -<p class='c002'>Both plants and animals originated in the first -instance from the πανσπερμία. Plants first arose when -<span class='pageno' id='Page_316'>316</span>the seeds of them which the air contained were brought -down by the rain-water,<a id='r721' /><a href='#f721' class='c014'><sup>[721]</sup></a> and animals originated in a -similar way.<a id='r722' /><a href='#f722' class='c014'><sup>[722]</sup></a> Like Anaximander, Anaxagoras held -that animals first arose in the moist element.<a id='r723' /><a href='#f723' class='c014'><sup>[723]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec137'></a>137. In these scanty notices we seem to see traces -of a polemical attitude towards Empedokles, and the -same may be observed in what we are told of the -theory of perception adopted by Anaxagoras, especially -in the view that perception is of contraries.<a id='r724' /><a href='#f724' class='c014'><sup>[724]</sup></a> The -account which Theophrastos gives of this<a id='r725' /><a href='#f725' class='c014'><sup>[725]</sup></a> is as -follows:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>But Anaxagoras says that perception is produced by -opposites; for like things cannot be affected by like. He -attempts to give a detailed enumeration of the particular -senses. We see by means of the image in the pupil; but no -image is cast upon what is of the same colour, but only on -what is different. With most living creatures things are of a -different colour to the pupil by day, though with some this is -so by night, and these are accordingly keen-sighted at that -time. Speaking generally, however, night is more of the same -colour with the eyes than day. And an image is cast on the -pupil by day, because light is a concomitant cause of the image, -and because the prevailing colour casts an image more readily -upon its opposite.<a id='r726' /><a href='#f726' class='c014'><sup>[726]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>It is in the same way that touch and taste discern their -objects. That which is just as warm or just as cold as we are -neither warms us nor cools us by its contact; and, in the same -way, we do not apprehend the sweet and the sour by means of -themselves. We know cold by warm, fresh by salt, and sweet -by sour, in virtue of our deficiency in each; for all these are -in us to begin with. And we smell and hear in the same -<span class='pageno' id='Page_317'>317</span>manner; the former by means of the accompanying respiration, -the latter by the sound penetrating to the brain, for the bone -which surrounds this is hollow, and it is upon it that the -sound falls.<a id='r727' /><a href='#f727' class='c014'><sup>[727]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>And all sensation implies pain, a view which would seem -to be the consequence of the first assumption, for all unlike -things produce pain by their contact. And this pain is made -perceptible by the long continuance or by the excess of a -sensation. Brilliant colours and excessive noises produce pain, -and we cannot dwell long on the same things. The larger -animals are the more sensitive, and, generally, sensation is -proportionate to the size of the organs of sense. Those animals -which have large, pure, and bright eyes, see large objects and -from a great distance, and contrariwise.<a id='r728' /><a href='#f728' class='c014'><sup>[728]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>And it is the same with hearing. Large animals can hear -great and distant sounds, while less sounds pass unperceived; -small animals perceive small sounds and those near at hand.<a id='r729' /><a href='#f729' class='c014'><sup>[729]</sup></a> -It is the same too with smell. Rarefied air has more smell; -for, when air is heated and rarefied, it smells. A large animal -when it breathes draws in the condensed air along with the -rarefied, while a small one draws in the rarefied by itself; so -the large one perceives more. For smell is better perceived -when it is near than when it is far by reason of its being more -condensed, while when dispersed it is weak. But, roughly -speaking, large animals do not perceive a rarefied smell, nor -small animals a condensed one.<a id='r730' /><a href='#f730' class='c014'><sup>[730]</sup></a></p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>This theory marks in some respects an advance -upon that of Empedokles. It was a happy thought of -Anaxagoras to make sensation depend upon irritation -by opposites, and to connect it with pain. Many -modern theories are based upon a similar idea.</p> - -<p class='c002'>That Anaxagoras regarded the senses as incapable -of reaching the truth of things is shown by the -fragments preserved by Sextus. But we must not, for -all that, turn him into a sceptic. The saying preserved -<span class='pageno' id='Page_318'>318</span>by Aristotle<a id='r731' /><a href='#f731' class='c014'><sup>[731]</sup></a> that “things are as we suppose them to -be,” has no value at all as evidence. It comes from -some collection of apophthegms, not from the treatise -of Anaxagoras himself; and it had, as likely as not, a -moral application. He did say (fr. <a href='#An.21'>21</a>) that “the -weakness of our senses prevents our discerning the -truth,” but this meant simply that we do not see the -“portions” of everything which are in everything; for -instance, the portions of black which are in the white. -Our senses simply show us the portions that prevail. -He also said that the things which are seen give us -the power of seeing the invisible, which is the very -opposite of scepticism (fr. <a href='#An.21a'>21<i>a</i></a>).</p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f647'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r647'>647</a>. Diog. ii. 7 (R. P. 148), with the perfectly certain emendation referred to -<i>ib.</i> 148 c. The Athens of 480 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> would hardly be a suitable place to -“begin philosophising”! For the variation in the archon’s name, see -Jacoby, p. 244, n. 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f648'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r648'>648</a>. We must read ὀγδοηκοστῆς with Meursius to make the figures come -right.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f649'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r649'>649</a>. On the statements of Apollodoros, see Jacoby, pp. 244 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f650'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r650'>650</a>. Diog., <i>loc. cit.</i> In any case, it is not a mere calculation of Apollodoros’s; -for he would certainly have made Anaxagoras forty years old at the date of -his arrival in Athens, and this would give <em>at most</em> twenty-eight years for his -residence there. The trial cannot have been later than 432 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, and may -have been earlier.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f651'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r651'>651</a>. Arist. Met. Α, 3. 984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f652'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r652'>652</a>. <cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 3 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 477), <i>ap.</i> Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 25, 19 (R. P. -162 e).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f653'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r653'>653</a>. Diog. ix. 41 (R. P. 187). On the date of Demokritos, see Chap. IX. -<a href='#sec171'>§ 171</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f654'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r654'>654</a>. <cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 4 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 478), repeated by the doxographers.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f655'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r655'>655</a>. Plato, <cite>Hipp. ma.</cite> 283 a, τοὐναντίον γὰρ Ἀναξαγόρᾳ φασὶ συμβῆναι -ἢ ὑμῖν· καταλειφθέντων γὰρ αὐτῷ παλλῶν χρημάτων καταμελῆσαι καὶ -ἀπολέσαι πάντα· οὕτως αὐτὸν ἀνόητα σοφίζεσθαι. Cf. Plut. <cite>Per.</cite> 16.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f656'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r656'>656</a>. Arist. <cite>Eth. Nic.</cite> Κ, 9. 1179 a 13. Cf. <cite>Eth. Eud.</cite> Α, 4. 1215 b 6 -and 15, 1216 a 10.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f657'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r657'>657</a>. Diog. ii. 10 (R. P. 149 a). Pliny, <cite>N.H.</cite> ii. 149, gives the date as Ol. -LXXVIII. 2; and Eusebios gives it under Ol. LXXVIII. 3. But cf. -<cite>Marm. Par. 57</cite>, ἀφ’ οὗ ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς ὁ λίθος ἔπεσε ... ἔτη ΗΗΠ, -ἄρχοντος Ἀθήνησι Θεαγενίδου, which is 468-67 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> The text of Diog. -ii. 11 is corrupt. For suggested restorations, see Jacoby, p. 244, n. 2; and -Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vors.</cite></span> p. 294, 28.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f658'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r658'>658</a>. Pliny, <i>loc. cit.</i>, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“qui lapis etiam nunc ostenditur magnitudine vehis -colore adusto.”</span> Cf. Plut. <cite>Lys.</cite> 12, καὶ δείκνυται ... ἔτι νῦν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f659'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r659'>659</a>. Cicero, <cite>de nat. D.</cite> i. 26 (after Philodemos), <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“Anaxagoras qui accepit -ab Anaximene disciplinam</span> (<i>i.e.</i> <a id='corr292.34'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='διήκουσε)'>διήκουσε)”</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_292.34'><ins class='correction' title='διήκουσε)'>διήκουσε)”</ins></a></span>; Diog. i. 13 (R. P. 4) and ii. 6; -Strabo, xiv. p. 645, Κλαζομένιος δ’ ἦν ἀνὴρ ἐπιφανὴς Ἀναξαγόρας ὁ φυσικός -Ἀναξιμένους ὁμιλητής; Euseb. <cite>P.E.</cite> p. 504; [Galen] <cite>Hist. Phil.</cite> 3; -Augustine, <cite>de Civ. Dei</cite>, viii. 2.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f660'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r660'>660</a>. <cite>Phys. Op.</cite> fr. 4 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 478), Ἀναξαγόρας μὲν γὰρ Ἡγησιβούλου -Κλαζομένιος κοινωνήσας τῆς Ἀναξιμένους φιλοσοφίας κ.τ.λ. In his fifth -edition (p. 973, n. 2) Zeller adopts the view given in the text, and confirms -it by comparing the very similar statement as to Leukippos, κοινωνήσας -Παρμενίδῃ τὴς φιλοσοφίας. See below, Chap. IX. <a href='#sec172'>§ 172</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f661'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r661'>661</a>. Holm, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gr. Gesch.</cite></span> ii. 334. The whole chapter is well worth reading -in this connexion.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f662'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r662'>662</a>. Plut. <cite>Per.</cite> 4 (R. P. 148 c). I follow Zeller, p. 975, n. 1 (Eng. trans. -ii. p. 327, n. 4), in regarding the sobriquet as derisive.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f663'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r663'>663</a>. 270 a (R. P. 148 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f664'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r664'>664</a>. Gell. xv. 20, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“Alexander autem Aetolus hos de Euripide versus -composuit”</span>; ὁ δ’ Ἀναξαγόρου τρόφιμος χαιοῦ (so Valckenaer for ἀρχαίου) -κ.τ.λ.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f665'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r665'>665</a>. The question was first raised by Valckenaer (<cite>Diatribe</cite>, p. 26). Cf. -also Wilamowitz, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Analecta Euripidea</cite></span>, pp. 162 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f666'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r666'>666</a>. See Introd. p. 12, <a href='#f14'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 14</ins></a>. The fragment is quoted R. P. 148 c. The -words ἀθανάτου φύσεως and κόσμον ἀγήρω carry us back rather to the -older Milesians.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f667'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r667'>667</a>. R. P. 150 b.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f668'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r668'>668</a>. Both Ephoros (represented by Diod. xii. 38) and the source of Plut. -<cite>Per.</cite> 32 made these attacks immediately precede the war. This may, -however, be pragmatic; they perhaps occurred earlier.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f669'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r669'>669</a>. <cite>Birds</cite>, 988. Aristophanes had no respect for orthodoxy when -combined with democratic opinions.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f670'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r670'>670</a>. Plut. <cite>Per.</cite> 32 (R. P. 148), where some of the original words have been -preserved. The phrase τὰ θεῖα and the word μετάρσια are archaisms from -the ψήφισμα.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f671'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r671'>671</a>. These accounts are repeated by Diog. ii. 12-14. It is worth while to -put the statements of Satyros and Sotion side by side in order to show the -unsatisfactory character of the biographical tradition:—</p> - -<table class='table2' summary=''> -<colgroup> -<col width='17%' /> -<col width='40%' /> -<col width='42%' /> -</colgroup> - <tr> - <td class='brt c023'> </td> - <td class='brt c024'><i>Sotion.</i></td> - <td class='c024'><i>Satyros.</i></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='brt c023'><i>Accuser.</i></td> - <td class='brt c023'>Kleon.</td> - <td class='c023'>Thoukydides s. of Melesias.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='brt c023'><i>Charge.</i></td> - <td class='brt c023'>Calling the sun a red-hot mass.</td> - <td class='c023'>Impiety and Medism.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='brt c023'><i>Sentence.</i></td> - <td class='brt c023'>Fined five talents.</td> - <td class='c023'>Sentenced to death in absence.</td> - </tr> -</table> -<p class='c022'>Hermippos represents Anaxagoras as already in prison under sentence of -death when Perikles shamed the people into letting him off. Lastly, -Hieronymos says he never was condemned at all. Perikles brought him -into court thin and wasted by disease, and the judges acquitted him out of -compassion! The Medism alleged by Satyros no doubt comes from -Stesimbrotos, who made Anaxagoras the friend of Themistokles instead -of Perikles. This, too, explains the accuser’s name (Busolt, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gr. Gesch.</cite></span> -p. 306, n. 3).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f672'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r672'>672</a>. <cite>Apol.</cite> 26 d.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f673'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r673'>673</a>. Plut. <cite>Nic.</cite> 23 (R. P. 148 c). Cf. <cite>Per.</cite> 32 (R. P. 148).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f674'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r674'>674</a>. See the account of Archelaos in Chap. X. <a href='#sec191'>§ 191</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f675'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r675'>675</a>. The oldest authority for the honours paid to Anaxagoras is Alkidamas, -the pupil of Gorgias, who said these were still kept up in his own time. -Arist. <cite>Rhet.</cite> Β, 23. 1398 b 15.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f676'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r676'>676</a>. Diog. i. 16; ii. 6 (R. P. 5; 153).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f677'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r677'>677</a>. Schaubach (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>An. Claz. Fragm.</cite></span> p. 57) fabricated a work entitled τὸ -πρὸς Λεχίνεον out of the pseudo-Aristotelian <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de plantis</cite></span>, 817 a 27. But the -Latin version of Alfred, which is the original of the Greek, has simply <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>et -ideo dicit lechineon</i></span>; and this appears to be due to a failure to make out the -Arabic text from which the Latin version was derived. Cf. Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. -d. Bot.</cite></span> i. 60.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f678'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r678'>678</a>. It comes from Vitruvius, vii. pr. 11. A forger, seeking to decorate his -production with a great name, would think naturally of the philosopher -who was said to have taught Euripides.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f679'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r679'>679</a>. Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Exilio</cite></span>, 607 f. The words merely mean that he used to draw -mathematical figures relating to the quadrature of the circle on the prison -floor.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f680'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r680'>680</a>. <cite>Apol.</cite> 26 d-e. The expression βιβλία perhaps implies that it filled -more than one roll.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f681'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r681'>681</a>. Simplicius also speaks of βιβλία.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f682'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r682'>682</a>. Simplicius tells us that this fragment was at the beginning of Book I. -The familiar sentence quoted by Diog. ii. 6 (R. P. 153) is not a fragment -of Anaxagoras, but a summary, like the πάντα ῥεῖ ascribed to Herakleitos -(Chap. III. p. 162).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f683'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r683'>683</a>. Zeller’s τομῇ still seems to me a convincing correction of the MS. τὸ -μή, which Diels retains.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f684'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r684'>684</a>. I had already pointed out in the first edition that Simplicius quotes -this three times as a continuous fragment, and that we are not entitled to -break it up. Diels now prints it as a single passage.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f685'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r685'>685</a>. Simplicius gives fr. 14 thus (p. 157, 5): ὁ δὲ νοῦς ὅσα ἐστί τε κάρτα -καὶ νῦν ἐστιν. Diels now reads ὁ δὲ νοῦς, ὃς ἀ<εί> ἐστί, τὸ κάρτα καὶ νῦν -ἐστιν. The correspondence of ἀεὶ ... καὶ νῦν is strongly in favour of this.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f686'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r686'>686</a>. On the text of fr. 15, see R. P. 156 a. I have followed Schorn in -adding καὶ τὸ λαμπρόν from Hippolytos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f687'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r687'>687</a>. This is doubtless the meaning of the words τοῖς ἔργοις ὕστερος in Arist. -<cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 984 a 12 (R. P. 150 a); though ἔργα certainly does not mean -“writings” or <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>opera omnia</i></span>, but simply “achievements.” The other -possible interpretations are “more advanced in his views” and “inferior -in his teaching” (Zeller, p. 1023, n. 2).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f688'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r688'>688</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Α, 4. 187 b 1 (R. P. 155 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f689'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r689'>689</a>. Aet. i. 3, 5 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 279). See R. P. 155 f and n. 1. I read καρπὸν -with Usener.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f690'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r690'>690</a>. See Tannery, <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Science hellène</cite></span>, pp. 283 sqq. I still think that Tannery’s -interpretation is substantially right, though his statement of it requires -some modification.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f691'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r691'>691</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Α, 2. 184 b 21, ἢ οὕτως ὥσπερ Δημόκριτος, τὸ γένος ἔν, -σχήματι δὲ ἢ εἴδει διαφερούσας, ἢ καὶ ἐναντίας.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f692'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r692'>692</a>. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 44, 1. He goes on to refer to θερμότητας ... καὶ -ψυχρότητας ξηρότητάς τε καὶ ὑγρότητας μανότητάς τε καὶ πυκνότητας καὶ τὰς -ἄλλας κατὰ ποιότητα ἐναντιότητας. He observes, however, that Alexander -rejected this interpretation and took διαφερούσας ἢ καὶ ἐναντίας closely -together as both referring to Demokritos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f693'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r693'>693</a>. <cite>Phys.</cite> Α, 4. 187 a 25, τὸν μὲν (Ἀναξαγόραν) ἄπειρα ποιεῖν τά τε ὁμοιομερῆ -καὶ τἀναντία. Aristotle’s own theory only differs from this in so far as he -makes ὕλη prior to the ἐναντία.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f694'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r694'>694</a>. Sext. <cite>Pyrrh.</cite> i. 33 (R. P. 161 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f695'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r695'>695</a>. The connexion was already noted by the eclectic Herakleitean to -whom I attribute Περὶ διαίτης, i. 3-4 (see above, Chap. III. p. 167, <a href='#f383'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 383</ins></a>). -Cf. the words ἔχει δὲ ἀπ’ ἀλλήλων τὸ μὲν πῦρ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος τὸ ὑγρόν· -ἔνι γὰρ ἐν πυρὶ ὑγρότης· τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ τοῦ πυρὸς τὸ ξηρόν· ἔνι γὰρ καὶ -ἐν ὕδατι ξηρόν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f696'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r696'>696</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> Α, 1, 314 a 18, ὁ μὲν γὰρ (Anaxagoras) τὰ -ὁμοιομερῆ στοιχεῖα τίθησιν, οἷον ὀστοῦν καὶ σάρκα καὶ μυελόν, καὶ τῶν ἄλλων -ὧν ἑκάστῳ συνώνυμον τὸ μέρος ἐστίν. This was, of course, repeated by -Theophrastos and the doxographers; but it is to be noted that Aetios, -supposing as he does that Anaxagoras himself used the term, gives it an -entirely wrong meaning. He says that the ὁμοιομέρειαι were so called from -the likeness of the particles of the τροφή to those of the body (<cite>Dox.</cite> 279 a -21; R. P. 155 f). Lucretius, i. 830 sqq. (R. P. 150 a) has a similar -account of the matter, derived from Epicurean sources. Obviously, it -cannot be reconciled with what Aristotle says.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f697'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r697'>697</a>. It is more likely that we have a trace of the terminology of Anaxagoras -himself in Περὶ διαίτης, 3, μέρεα μερέων, ὅλα ὅλων.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f698'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r698'>698</a>. Cf. above, p. 305.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f699'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r699'>699</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> Α, 1. 314 a 29. The word πανσπερμία was used -by Demokritos (Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> 404 a 8; R. P. 200), and it occurs in the -Περὶ διαίτης (<i>loc. cit.</i>). It seems natural to suppose that it was used by -Anaxagoras himself, as he used the term σπέρματα. Much difficulty has -been caused by the apparent inclusion of Water and Fire among the -ὁμοιομερῆ in Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 984 a 11 (R. P. 150 a). Bonitz understands -the words καθάπερ ὕδωρ ἢ πῦρ to mean “as we have just seen that -Fire and Water do in the system of Empedokles.” In any case, καθάπερ -goes closely with οὕτω, and the general sense is that Anaxagoras applies -to the ὁμοιομερῆ what is really true of the στοιχεῖα. It would be better to -delete the comma after πῦρ and add one after φησι, for συγκρίσει καὶ διακρίσει -μόνον is explanatory of οὕτω ... καθάπερ. In the next sentence, I read -ἁπλῶς for ἄλλως with Zeller (<cite>Arch.</cite> ii. p. 261). See also Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, -Γ, 3. 302 b 1 (R. P. 150 a), where the matter is very clearly put.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f700'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r700'>700</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 5. 205 b 1 (R. P. 154 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f701'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r701'>701</a>. <cite>Phys.</cite> Ζ, 6. 213 a 22 (R. P. 159). We have a full discussion of the -experiments with the <em>klepsydra</em> in <i>Probl.</i> 914 b 9 sqq., a passage which -we have already used to illustrate Empedokles, fr. <a href='#Em.100'>100</a>. See above, -p. 253, <a href='#f565'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 565</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f702'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r702'>702</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 984 b 15 (R. P. 152).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f703'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r703'>703</a>. Plato, <cite>Phd.</cite> 97 b 8 (R. P. 155 d).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f704'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r704'>704</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 4. 985 a 18 (R. P. 155 d).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f705'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r705'>705</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Θ, 5. 256 b 24, διὸ καὶ Ἀναξαγόρας ὀρθῶς λέγει, τὸν νοῦν -ἀπαθῆ φάσκων καὶ ἀμιγῆ εἶναι, ἐπειδήπερ κινήσεως ἀρχὴν αὐτὸν ποιεῖ εἶναι· -οὕτω γὰρ ἂν μόνως κινοίη ἀκίνητος ὢν καὶ κρατοίη ἀμιγῆς ὤν. This is only -quoted for the meaning of κρατεῖν. Of course, the words ἀκίνητος ὤν are -not meant to be historical, and still less is the interpretation in <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> Γ, -4. 429 a 18. Diogenes of Apollonia (fr. 5) couples ὑπὸ τούτου πάντα -κυβερνᾶσθαι (the old Milesian word) with πάντων κρατεῖν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f706'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r706'>706</a>. If we retain the MS. εἰδέναι in fr. 1. In any case, the name τὸ σοφόν -implies as much.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f707'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r707'>707</a>. See fr. <a href='#An.3'>3</a>, <a href='#An.5'>5</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f708'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r708'>708</a>. Zeller, p. 993.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f709'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r709'>709</a>. Note that Anaxagoras says “air” where Empedokles usually said -“aether,” and that “aether” is with him equivalent to fire. Cf. Arist. -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Γ, 3. 302 b 4, τὸ γὰρ πῦρ καὶ τὸν αἰθέρα προσαγορεύει ταὐτό; -and <i>ib.</i> Α, 3. 270 b 24, Ἀναξαγόρας δὲ καταχρῆται τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ -οὐ καλῶς· ὀνομάζει γὰρ αἰθέρα ἀντὶ πυρός.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f710'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r710'>710</a>. Aet. ii. 13, 3 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 341; R. P. 157 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f711'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r711'>711</a>. See above, p. 300, <a href='#f684'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 684</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f712'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r712'>712</a>. Aet. ii. 1, 3. See above, Chap. I. p. <a href='#Page_63'>63</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f713'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r713'>713</a>. Further, it can be proved that this passage (fr. <a href='#An.4'>4</a>) occurred quite near -the beginning of the work. Cf. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 34, 28, μετ’ ὀλίγα τῆς -ἀρχῆς τοῦ πρώτου Περὶ φυσέως, p. 156, 1, καὶ μετ’ ὀλίγα (after fr. <a href='#An.2'>2</a>), -which itself occurred, μετ’ ὀλίγον (after fr. <a href='#An.1'>1</a>), which was the beginning of -the book. A reference to other “worlds” would be quite in place here, -but not a reference to the moon.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f714'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r714'>714</a>. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 8, 3 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 562).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f715'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r715'>715</a>. This is an addition to the older view occasioned by the Eleatic denial -of the void.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f716'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r716'>716</a>. The text here is very corrupt, but the general sense can be got from -Aet. iii. 16. 2.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f717'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r717'>717</a>. The MS. reading is ἐν τοῖς ἄρκτοις, for which Diels adopts Fredrichs’ -ἐν τοῖς ἀνταρκτικοῖς. I have thought it safer to translate the ἐν τῇ Αἰθιοπίᾳ -which Aetios gives (iv. 1, 3). This view is mentioned and rejected by -Herodotos (ii. 22). Seneca (<cite>N. Q.</cite> iv. 2, 17) points out that it was adopted -by Aischylos (<cite>Suppl.</cite> 559, fr. 300, Nauck), Sophokles (fr. 797), and Euripides -(<cite>Hel.</cite> 3, fr. 228).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f718'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r718'>718</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Part. An.</cite></span> Δ, 10. 687 a 7 (R. P. 160 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f719'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r719'>719</a>. [Arist.] <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de plant.</cite></span> Α, 1. 815 a 15 (R. P. 160).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f720'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r720'>720</a>. Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Q.N.</cite></span> 1 (R. P. 160), ζῷον ... ἐγγεῖον.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f721'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r721'>721</a>. Theophr. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Hist. Plant.</cite></span> iii. 1, 4 (R. P. 160).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f722'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r722'>722</a>. Irenaeus, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>adv. Haer.</cite></span> ii. 14, 2 (R. P. 160 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f723'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r723'>723</a>. Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 8, 12 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 563).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f724'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r724'>724</a>. Beare, p. 37.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f725'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r725'>725</a>. Theophr. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Sensu</cite></span>, 27 sqq. (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 507).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f726'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r726'>726</a>. Beare, p. 38.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f727'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r727'>727</a>. Beare, p. 208.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f728'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r728'>728</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> p. 209.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f729'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r729'>729</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> p. 103.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f730'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r730'>730</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> p. 137.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f731'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r731'>731</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Δ, 5. 1009 b 25 (R. P. 161 a).</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_319'>319</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER VII <br /> THE PYTHAGOREANS</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>The Pythagorean school.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec138'></a>138. We have seen (<a href='#sec40'>§ 40</a>) how the Pythagoreans, -after losing their supremacy at Kroton, concentrated -themselves at Rhegion; but the school founded there -was soon broken up. Archippos stayed behind in -Italy; but Philolaos and Lysis, the latter of whom -had escaped as a young man from the massacre of -Kroton, betook themselves to continental Hellas, -settling finally at Thebes. We know from Plato that -Philolaos was there some time during the latter part -of the fifth century, and Lysis was afterwards the -teacher of Epameinondas.<a id='r732' /><a href='#f732' class='c014'><sup>[732]</sup></a> Some of the Pythagoreans, -however, were able to return to Italy later on. -Philolaos certainly did so, and Plato implies that he -had left Thebes some time before 399 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, the year -in which Sokrates was put to death. In the fourth -century, the chief seat of the school is at Taras, and -we find the Pythagoreans heading the opposition to -Dionysios of Syracuse. It is to this period that -Archytas belongs. He was the friend of Plato, and -almost realised, if he did not suggest, the ideal of the -philosopher king. He ruled Taras for years, and Aristoxenos -<span class='pageno' id='Page_320'>320</span>tells us that he was never defeated in the field -of battle.<a id='r733' /><a href='#f733' class='c014'><sup>[733]</sup></a> He was also the inventor of mathematical -mechanics. At the same time, Pythagoreanism had -taken root in Hellas. Lysis, we have seen, remained -at Thebes, where Simmias and Kebes had heard -Philolaos, and there was an important community of -Pythagoreans at Phleious. Aristoxenos was personally -acquainted with the last generation of the school, -and mentioned by name Xenophilos the Chalkidian -from Thrace, with Phanton, Echekrates, Diokles, and -Polymnestos of Phleious. They were all, he said, -disciples of Philolaos and Eurytos.<a id='r734' /><a href='#f734' class='c014'><sup>[734]</sup></a> Plato was on -friendly terms with these men, and dedicated the -<cite>Phaedo</cite> to them.<a id='r735' /><a href='#f735' class='c014'><sup>[735]</sup></a> Xenophilos was the teacher of -Aristoxenos, and lived in perfect health at Athens till -the age of a hundred and five.<a id='r736' /><a href='#f736' class='c014'><sup>[736]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Philolaos.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec139'></a>139. This generation of the school really belongs, -however, to a later period, and cannot be profitably -studied apart from Plato; it is with their master -Philolaos we have now to deal. The facts we know -about his teaching from external sources are few in -number. The doxographers, indeed, ascribe to him -an elaborate theory of the planetary system, but -Aristotle never mentions his name in connexion with -this. He gives it as the theory of “the Pythagoreans” -or of “some Pythagoreans.”<a id='r737' /><a href='#f737' class='c014'><sup>[737]</sup></a> It seems natural to -suppose, however, that the Pythagorean elements of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_321'>321</span>Plato’s <cite>Phaedo</cite> and <cite>Gorgias</cite> come mainly from -Philolaos. Plato makes Sokrates express surprise -that Simmias and Kebes had not learnt from him why -it is unlawful for a man to take his life,<a id='r738' /><a href='#f738' class='c014'><sup>[738]</sup></a> and it seems -to be implied that the Pythagoreans at Thebes used -the word “philosopher” in the special sense of a man -who is seeking to find a way of release from the burden -of this life.<a id='r739' /><a href='#f739' class='c014'><sup>[739]</sup></a> It is extremely probable that Philolaos -spoke of the body (σῶμα) as the tomb (σῆμα) of the -soul.<a id='r740' /><a href='#f740' class='c014'><sup>[740]</sup></a> In any case, we seem to be justified in holding -that he taught the old Pythagorean religious doctrine -in some form, and it is likely that he laid special stress -upon knowledge as a means of release. That is the -impression we get from Plato, and he is by far the -best authority we have on the subject.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We know further that Philolaos wrote on -“numbers”; for Speusippos followed him in the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_322'>322</span>account he gave of the Pythagorean theories on that -subject.<a id='r741' /><a href='#f741' class='c014'><sup>[741]</sup></a> It is probable that he busied himself mainly -with arithmetic, and we can hardly doubt that his -geometry was of the primitive type described in an -earlier chapter. Eurytos was his disciple, and we have -seen (<a href='#sec47'>§ 47</a>) that his views were still very crude.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We also know now that Philolaos wrote on -medicine,<a id='r742' /><a href='#f742' class='c014'><sup>[742]</sup></a> and that, while apparently influenced by -the theories of the Sicilian school, he opposed them -from the Pythagorean standpoint. In particular, he -said that our bodies were composed only of the warm, -and did not participate in the cold. It was only after -birth that the cold was introduced by respiration. The -connexion of this with the old Pythagorean theory is -obvious. Just as the Fire in the macrocosm draws in -and limits the cold dark breath which surrounds the -world (<a href='#sec53'>§ 53</a>), so do our bodies inhale cold breath from -outside. Philolaos made bile, blood, and phlegm the -causes of disease; and, in accordance with the theory -just mentioned, he had to deny that the phlegm was -cold, as the Sicilian school held it was. Its etymology -proved that it was warm. As Diels says, Philolaos -strikes us as an “uninteresting eclectic” so far as his -medical views are concerned.<a id='r743' /><a href='#f743' class='c014'><sup>[743]</sup></a> We shall see, however, -that it was just this preoccupation with the medicine -of the Sicilian school that gave rise to some of the -most striking developments of later Pythagoreanism.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Plato and the Pythagoreans.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec140'></a>140. Such, so far as we can see, was the historical -<span class='pageno' id='Page_323'>323</span>Philolaos, and he is a sufficiently remarkable figure. -He is usually, however, represented in a different light, -and has even been spoken of as a “precursor of -Copernicus.” To understand this, we shall have to -consider for a little the story of what can only be -called a literary conspiracy. Not till this has been -exposed will it be possible to estimate the real -importance of Philolaos and his immediate disciples.</p> - -<p class='c002'>As we can see from the <cite>Phaedo</cite> and the <cite>Gorgias</cite>, -Plato was intimate with these men and was deeply -impressed by their religious teaching, though it is plain -too that he did not adopt it as his own faith. He -was still more attracted by the scientific side of -Pythagoreanism, and to the last this exercised a great -influence on him. His own system in its final form -had many points of contact with it, as he is careful to -mark in the <cite>Philebus</cite>.<a id='r744' /><a href='#f744' class='c014'><sup>[744]</sup></a> But, just because he stood so -near it, he is apt to develop Pythagoreanism on lines -of his own, which may or may not have commended -themselves to Archytas, but are no guide to the views -of Philolaos and Eurytos. He is not careful, however, -to claim the authorship of his own improvements in -the system. He did not believe that cosmology could -be an exact science, and he is therefore quite willing -to credit Timaios the Lokrian, or “ancient sages” -generally, with theories which certainly had their birth -in the Academy.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Now Plato had many enemies and detractors, and -this literary device enabled them to bring against him -the charge of plagiarism. Aristoxenos was one of -these enemies, and we know he made the extraordinary -statement that most of the <cite>Republic</cite> was to be found in -<span class='pageno' id='Page_324'>324</span>a work by Protagoras.<a id='r745' /><a href='#f745' class='c014'><sup>[745]</sup></a> He seems also to be the -original source of the story that Plato bought “three -Pythagorean books” from Philolaos and copied the -<cite>Timaeus</cite> out of them. According to this, the “three -books” had come into the possession of Philolaos; -and, as he had fallen into great poverty, Dion was -able to buy them from him, or from his relatives, at -Plato’s request, for a hundred <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>minae</i></span>.<a id='r746' /><a href='#f746' class='c014'><sup>[746]</sup></a> It is certain, -at any rate, that this story was already current in the -third century; for the sillographer Timon of Phleious -addresses Plato thus: “And of thee too, Plato, did the -desire of discipleship lay hold. For many pieces of -silver thou didst get in exchange a small book, and -starting from it didst learn to write <cite>Timaeus</cite>.”<a id='r747' /><a href='#f747' class='c014'><sup>[747]</sup></a> -Hermippos, the pupil of Kallimachos, said that “some -writer” said that Plato himself bought the books from -the relatives of Philolaos for forty Alexandrian <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>minae</i></span> -and copied the <cite>Timaeus</cite> out of it; while Satyros, the -Aristarchean, says he got it through Dion for a -hundred <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>minae</i></span>.<a id='r748' /><a href='#f748' class='c014'><sup>[748]</sup></a> There is no suggestion in any of -these accounts that the book was by Philolaos himself; -they imply rather that what Plato bought was either a -book by Pythagoras, or at any rate authentic notes of -his teaching, which had come into the hands of -Philolaos. In later times, it was generally supposed -that the work entitled <cite>The Soul of the World</cite>, by -Timaios the Lokrian, was meant;<a id='r749' /><a href='#f749' class='c014'><sup>[749]</sup></a> but it has now -been proved beyond a doubt that this cannot have -<span class='pageno' id='Page_325'>325</span>existed earlier than the first century <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> We know -nothing of Timaios except what Plato tells us himself, -and he may even be a fictitious character like the -Eleatic Stranger. His name does not occur among -the Lokrians in the Catalogue of Pythagoreans -preserved by Iamblichos.<a id='r750' /><a href='#f750' class='c014'><sup>[750]</sup></a> Besides this, the work -does not fulfil the most important requirement, that -of being in three books, which is always an essential -feature of the story.<a id='r751' /><a href='#f751' class='c014'><sup>[751]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Not one of the writers just mentioned professes to -have seen the famous “three books”;<a id='r752' /><a href='#f752' class='c014'><sup>[752]</sup></a> but at a later -date there were at least two works which claimed to -represent them. Diels has shown how a treatise in -three sections, entitled Παιδευτικόν, πολιτικόν, φυσικόν, -was composed in the Ionic dialect and attributed to -Pythagoras. It was largely based on the Πυθαγορικαὶ -ἀποφάσεις of Aristoxenos, but its date is uncertain.<a id='r753' /><a href='#f753' class='c014'><sup>[753]</sup></a> -In the first century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, Demetrios Magnes was able -to quote the opening words of the work published by -Philolaos.<a id='r754' /><a href='#f754' class='c014'><sup>[754]</sup></a> That, however, was written in Doric. -Demetrios does not actually say it was by Philolaos -himself, though it is no doubt the same work from -which a number of extracts are preserved under his -name in Stobaios and later writers. If it professed to -be by Philolaos, that was not quite in accordance with -the original story; but it is easy to see how his name -<span class='pageno' id='Page_326'>326</span>may have become attached to it. We are told that -the other book which passed under the name of -Pythagoras was really by Lysis.<a id='r755' /><a href='#f755' class='c014'><sup>[755]</sup></a> Boeckh has shown -that the work ascribed to Philolaos probably consisted -of three books also, and Proclus referred to it as the -<cite>Bakchai</cite>,<a id='r756' /><a href='#f756' class='c014'><sup>[756]</sup></a> a fanciful title which recalls the “Muses” of -Herodotos. Two of the extracts in Stobaios bear it. -It must be confessed that the whole story is very -suspicious; but, as some of the best authorities still -regard the fragments as partly genuine, it is necessary -to look at them more closely.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The “Fragments of Philolaos.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec141'></a>141. Boeckh argued with great learning and skill -that all the fragments preserved under the name of -Philolaos were genuine; but no one will now go so -far as this. The lengthy extract on the soul is given -up even by those who maintain the genuineness of the -rest.<a id='r757' /><a href='#f757' class='c014'><sup>[757]</sup></a> It cannot be said that this position is plausible -on the face of it. Boeckh saw there was no ground -for supposing that there ever was more than a single -work, and he drew the conclusion that we must accept -all the remains as genuine or reject all as spurious.<a id='r758' /><a href='#f758' class='c014'><sup>[758]</sup></a> -As, however, Zeller and Diels still maintain the -genuineness of most of the fragments, we cannot -ignore them altogether. Arguments based, on the -doctrine contained in them would, it is true, present -<span class='pageno' id='Page_327'>327</span>the appearance of a vicious circle at this stage. It is -only in connexion with our other evidence that these -can be introduced. But there are two serious -objections to the fragments which may be mentioned -at once. They are sufficiently strong to justify us in -refusing to use them till we have ascertained from -other sources what doctrines may fairly be attributed -to the Pythagoreans of this date.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In the first place, we must ask a question which -has not yet been faced. Is it likely that Philolaos -should have written in Doric? Ionic was the dialect -of all science and philosophy till the time of the -Peloponnesian War, and there is no reason to suppose -that the early Pythagoreans used any other.<a id='r759' /><a href='#f759' class='c014'><sup>[759]</sup></a> Pythagoras -was himself an Ionian, and it is by no means -clear that in his time the Achaian states in which he -founded his Order had already adopted the Dorian -dialect.<a id='r760' /><a href='#f760' class='c014'><sup>[760]</sup></a> Alkmaion of Kroton seems to have written -in Ionic.<a id='r761' /><a href='#f761' class='c014'><sup>[761]</sup></a> Diels says, it is true, that Philolaos and -then Archytas were the first Pythagoreans to use the -dialect of their homes;<a id='r762' /><a href='#f762' class='c014'><sup>[762]</sup></a> but Philolaos can hardly be -said to have had a home,<a id='r763' /><a href='#f763' class='c014'><sup>[763]</sup></a> and the fragments of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_328'>328</span>Archytas are not written in the dialect of Taras, but -in what may be called “common Doric.” Archytas -may have found it convenient to use that dialect; but -he is at least a generation later than Philolaos, which -makes a great difference. There is evidence that, in -the time of Philolaos and later, Ionic was still used -even by the citizens of Dorian states for scientific -purposes. Diogenes of Apollonia in Crete and the -Syracusan historian Antiochos wrote in Ionic, while -the medical writers of Dorian, Kos and Knidos, -continue to use the same dialect. The forged work -of Pythagoras referred to above, which some ascribed -to Lysis, was in Ionic; and so was the work on the -<em>Akousmata</em> attributed to Androkydes,<a id='r764' /><a href='#f764' class='c014'><sup>[764]</sup></a> which shows -that, even down to Alexandrian times, it was still -believed that Ionic was the proper dialect for Pythagorean -writings.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In the second place, there can be no doubt that -one of the fragments refers to the five regular solids, -four of which are identified with the elements of -Empedokles.<a id='r765' /><a href='#f765' class='c014'><sup>[765]</sup></a> Now Plato gives us to understand, in -a well-known passage of the <cite>Republic</cite>, that stereometry -had not been adequately investigated at the time he -wrote,<a id='r766' /><a href='#f766' class='c014'><sup>[766]</sup></a> and we have express testimony that the five -“Platonic figures,” as they were called, were discovered -in the Academy. In the Scholia to Euclid we read -<span class='pageno' id='Page_329'>329</span>that the Pythagoreans only knew the cube, the -pyramid (tetrahedron), and the dodecahedron, while the -octahedron and the icosahedron were discovered by -Theaitetos.<a id='r767' /><a href='#f767' class='c014'><sup>[767]</sup></a> This sufficiently justifies us in regarding -the “fragments of Philolaos” with something more -than suspicion. We shall find more anachronisms as -we go on.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Problem.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec142'></a>142. We must look, then, for other evidence. -From what has been said, it will be clear that we -cannot safely take Plato as our guide to the original -meaning of the Pythagorean theory, though it is -certainly from him alone that we can learn to regard -it sympathetically. Aristotle, on the other hand, was -quite out of sympathy with Pythagorean ways of -thinking, but took a great deal of pains to understand -them. This was just because they played so great a -part in the philosophy of Plato and his successors, and -he had to make the relation of the two doctrines as -clear as he could to himself and his disciples. What -we have to do, then, is to interpret what Aristotle tells -us in the spirit of Plato, and then to consider how the -doctrine we arrive at in this way is related to the -systems which had preceded it. It is a delicate -operation, no doubt, but it has been made much safer -<span class='pageno' id='Page_330'>330</span>by recent discoveries in the early history of mathematics -and medicine.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Zeller has cleared the ground by eliminating the -purely Platonic elements which have crept into later -accounts of the system. These are of two kinds. -First of all, we have genuine Academic formulae, such -as the identification of the Limit and the Unlimited -with the One and the Indeterminate Dyad;<a id='r768' /><a href='#f768' class='c014'><sup>[768]</sup></a> and -secondly, there is the Neoplatonic doctrine which -represents it as an opposition between God and -Matter.<a id='r769' /><a href='#f769' class='c014'><sup>[769]</sup></a> It is not necessary to repeat Zeller’s -arguments here, as no one will any longer attribute -these doctrines to the Pythagoreans of the fifth -century.</p> - -<p class='c002'>This simplifies the problem very considerably, but -it is still extremely difficult. According to Aristotle, -the Pythagoreans said <em>Things are numbers</em>, though that -does not appear to be the doctrine of the fragments of -“Philolaos.” According to them, things <em>have</em> number, -which make them knowable, while their real essence is -something unknowable.<a id='r770' /><a href='#f770' class='c014'><sup>[770]</sup></a> That would be intelligible -enough, but the formula that things <em>are</em> numbers seems -meaningless. We have seen reason for believing that -it is due to Pythagoras himself (<a href='#sec52'>§ 52</a>), though we did -not feel able to say very clearly what he meant by it. -<span class='pageno' id='Page_331'>331</span>There is no such doubt as to his school. Aristotle -says they used the formula in a cosmological sense. -The world, according to them, was made of numbers -in the same sense as others had said it was made of -“four roots” or “innumerable seeds.” It will not do -to dismiss this as mysticism. Whatever we may think -of Pythagoras, the Pythagoreans of the fifth century -were scientific men, and they must have meant something -quite definite. We shall, no doubt, have to say -that they used the words <em>Things are numbers</em> in a -somewhat non-natural sense, but there is no difficulty -in such a supposition. We have seen already how the -friends of Aristoxenos reinterpreted the old <em>Akousmata</em> -(<a href='#sec44'>§ 44</a>). The Pythagoreans had certainly a great -veneration for the actual words of the Master (αὐτὸς -ἔφα); but such veneration is often accompanied by a -singular licence of interpretation. We shall start, -then, from what Aristotle tells us about the numbers.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Aristotle on the <a id='corr331.19'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='Number'>Numbers</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_331.19'><ins class='correction' title='Number'>Numbers</ins></a></span>.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec143'></a>143. In the first place, Aristotle is quite decided -in his opinion that Pythagoreanism was intended to -be a cosmological system like the others. “Though -the Pythagoreans,” he tells us, “made use of less -obvious first principles and elements than the rest, -seeing that they did not derive them from sensible -objects, yet all their discussions and studies had -reference to nature alone. They describe the origin -of the heavens, and they observe the phenomena of its -parts, all that happens to it and all it does.”<a id='r771' /><a href='#f771' class='c014'><sup>[771]</sup></a> They -apply their first principles entirely to these things, -“agreeing apparently with the other natural philosophers -in holding that reality was just what could be perceived -by the senses, and is contained within the compass of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_332'>332</span>the heavens,”<a id='r772' /><a href='#f772' class='c014'><sup>[772]</sup></a> though “the first principles and causes -of which they made use were really adequate to -explain realities of a higher order than the sensible.”<a id='r773' /><a href='#f773' class='c014'><sup>[773]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The doctrine is more precisely stated by Aristotle -to be that the elements of numbers are the elements of -things, and that therefore things are numbers.<a id='r774' /><a href='#f774' class='c014'><sup>[774]</sup></a> He -is equally positive that these “things” are sensible -things,<a id='r775' /><a href='#f775' class='c014'><sup>[775]</sup></a> and indeed that they are bodies,<a id='r776' /><a href='#f776' class='c014'><sup>[776]</sup></a> the bodies of -which the world is constructed.<a id='r777' /><a href='#f777' class='c014'><sup>[777]</sup></a> This construction of -the world out of numbers was a real process in time, -which the Pythagoreans described in detail.<a id='r778' /><a href='#f778' class='c014'><sup>[778]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Further, the numbers were intended to be mathematical -numbers, though they were not separated from -the things of sense.<a id='r779' /><a href='#f779' class='c014'><sup>[779]</sup></a> On the other hand, they were -not mere predicates of something else, but had an -independent reality of their own. “They did not hold -that the limited and the unlimited and the one were -<span class='pageno' id='Page_333'>333</span>certain other substances, such as fire, water, or anything -else of that sort; but that the unlimited itself and the -one itself were the reality of the things of which they -are predicated, and that is why they said that number -was the reality of everything.”<a id='r780' /><a href='#f780' class='c014'><sup>[780]</sup></a> Accordingly the -numbers are, in Aristotle’s own language, not only the -formal, but also the material, cause of things.<a id='r781' /><a href='#f781' class='c014'><sup>[781]</sup></a> -According to the Pythagoreans, things are made of -numbers in the same sense as they were made of fire, -air, or water in the theories of their predecessors.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Lastly, Aristotle notes that the point in which the -Pythagoreans agreed with Plato was in giving numbers -an independent reality of their own; while Plato -differed from the Pythagoreans in holding that this -reality was distinguishable from that of sensible things.<a id='r782' /><a href='#f782' class='c014'><sup>[782]</sup></a> -Let us consider these statements in detail.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The elements of numbers.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec144'></a>144. Aristotle speaks of certain “elements” -(στοιχεῖα) of numbers, which were also the elements of -things. That, of course, is only his own way of -putting the matter; but it is clearly the key to the -problem, if we can discover what it means. Primarily, -the “elements of number” are the Odd and -the Even, but that does not seem to help us much. -We find, however, that the Odd and Even were -identified in a somewhat violent way with the Limit -and the Unlimited, which we have seen reason to -regard as the original principles of the Pythagorean -cosmology. Aristotle tells us that it is the Even which -gives things their unlimited character when it is -contained in them and limited by the Odd,<a id='r783' /><a href='#f783' class='c014'><sup>[783]</sup></a> and the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_334'>334</span>commentators are at one in understanding this to -mean that the Even is in some way the cause of -infinite divisibility. They get into great difficulties, -however, when they try to show how this can be. -Simplicius has preserved an explanation, in all probability -Alexander’s, to the effect that they called the -even number unlimited “because every even is divided -into equal parts, and what is divided into equal parts -is unlimited in respect of bipartition; for division into -equals and halves goes on <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>ad infinitum</i></span>. But, when -the odd is added, it limits it; for it prevents its -division into equal parts.”<a id='r784' /><a href='#f784' class='c014'><sup>[784]</sup></a> Now it is plain that we -must not impute to the Pythagoreans the view that -even numbers can be halved indefinitely. They had -carefully studied the properties of the decad, and -they must have known that the even numbers 6 -and 10 do not admit of this. The explanation is -really to be found in a fragment of Aristoxenos, -where we read that “even numbers are those which -are divided into equal parts, while odd numbers are -divided into unequal parts and have a middle -term.”<a id='r785' /><a href='#f785' class='c014'><sup>[785]</sup></a> This is still further elucidated by a passage -which is quoted in Stobaios and ultimately goes -back to Poseidonios. It runs: “When the odd is -divided into two equal parts, a unit is left over in the -middle; but when the even is so divided, an empty -<span class='pageno' id='Page_335'>335</span>field is left, without a master and without a number, -showing that it is defective and incomplete.”<a id='r786' /><a href='#f786' class='c014'><sup>[786]</sup></a> Again, -Plutarch says: “In the division of numbers, the even, -when parted in any direction, leaves as it were within -itself ... a field; but, when the same thing is done -to the odd, there is always a middle left over from the -division.”<a id='r787' /><a href='#f787' class='c014'><sup>[787]</sup></a> It is clear that all these passages refer to -the same thing, and that can hardly be anything else -than those arrangements of “terms” in patterns with -which we are already familiar (<a href='#sec47'>§ 47</a>). If we think of -these, we shall see in what sense it is true that -bipartition goes on <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>ad infinitum</i></span>. However high the -number may be, the number of ways in which it can -be equally divided will also increase.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec145'></a>145. In this way, then, the Odd and the Even -were identified with the Limit and the Unlimited, and -it is possible, though by no means certain, that -Pythagoras himself had taken this step. In any case, -there can be no doubt that by his Unlimited he meant -something spatially extended, and we have seen that -he identified it with air, night, or the void, so we are -prepared to find that his followers also thought of the -Unlimited as extended. Aristotle certainly regarded -it so. He argues that, if the Unlimited is itself a -<span class='pageno' id='Page_336'>336</span>reality, and not merely the predicate of some other -reality, then every part of it must be unlimited too, -just as every part of air is air.<a id='r788' /><a href='#f788' class='c014'><sup>[788]</sup></a> The same thing is -implied in his statement that the Pythagorean Unlimited -was outside the heavens.<a id='r789' /><a href='#f789' class='c014'><sup>[789]</sup></a> Further than this, it is -hardly safe to go. Philolaos and his followers cannot -have regarded the Unlimited in the old Pythagorean -way as Air; for, as we shall see, they adopted the -theory of Empedokles as to that “element,” and -accounted for it otherwise. On the other hand, they -can hardly have regarded it as an absolute void; for -that conception was introduced by the Atomists. It is -enough to say that they meant by the Unlimited the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>res -extensa</i></span>, without analysing that conception any further.</p> - -<p class='c002'>As the Unlimited is spatial, the Limit must be -spatial too, and we should naturally expect to find that -the point, the line, and the surface were regarded as all -forms of the Limit. That was the later doctrine; but -the characteristic feature of Pythagoreanism is just that -the point was not regarded as a limit, but as the first -product of the Limit and the Unlimited, and was -identified with the arithmetical unit. According to -this view, then, the point has one dimension, the line -two, the surface three, and the solid four.<a id='r790' /><a href='#f790' class='c014'><sup>[790]</sup></a> In other -<span class='pageno' id='Page_337'>337</span>words, the Pythagorean points have magnitude, their -lines breadth, and their surfaces thickness. The whole -theory, in short, turns on the definition of the point -as a unit “having position.”<a id='r791' /><a href='#f791' class='c014'><sup>[791]</sup></a> It was out of such -elements that it seemed possible to construct a -world.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The numbers as magnitudes.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec146'></a>146. It is clear that this way of regarding the point, -the line, and the surface is closely bound up with the -practice of representing numbers by dots arranged in -symmetrical patterns, which we have seen reason for -attributing to the Pythagoreans (<a href='#sec47'>§ 47</a>). The science -of geometry had already made considerable advances, -but the old view of quantity as a sum of units had not -been revised, and so a doctrine such as we have -indicated was inevitable. This is the true answer to -Zeller’s contention that to regard the Pythagorean -numbers as spatial is to ignore the fact that the -doctrine was originally arithmetical rather than -geometrical. Our interpretation takes full account of -that fact, and indeed makes the peculiarities of the -whole system depend upon it. Aristotle is very -decided as to the Pythagorean points having magnitude. -“They construct the whole world out of numbers,” he -tells us, “but they suppose the units have magnitude. -As to how the first unit with magnitude arose, they -appear to be at a loss.”<a id='r792' /><a href='#f792' class='c014'><sup>[792]</sup></a> Zeller holds that this is -only an inference of Aristotle’s,<a id='r793' /><a href='#f793' class='c014'><sup>[793]</sup></a> and he is probably -right in this sense, that the Pythagoreans never felt -the need of saying in so many words that points had -<span class='pageno' id='Page_338'>338</span>magnitude. It does seem probable, however, that -they called them ὄγκοι.<a id='r794' /><a href='#f794' class='c014'><sup>[794]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Nor is Zeller’s other argument against the view -that the Pythagorean numbers were spatial any more -inconsistent with the way in which we have now stated -it. He himself allows, and indeed insists, that in the -Pythagorean cosmology the numbers were spatial, but -he raises difficulties about the other parts of the system. -There are other things, such as the Soul and Justice -and Opportunity, which are said to be numbers, and -which cannot be regarded as constructed of points, -lines, and surfaces.<a id='r795' /><a href='#f795' class='c014'><sup>[795]</sup></a> Now it appears to me that this -is just the meaning of a passage in which Aristotle -criticises the Pythagoreans. They held, he says, that -in one part of the world Opinion prevailed, while a -little above it or below it were to be found Injustice -or Separation or Mixture, each of which was, according -to them, a number. But in the very same regions -of the heavens were to be found things having -magnitude which were also numbers. How can this -be, since Justice has no magnitude?<a id='r796' /><a href='#f796' class='c014'><sup>[796]</sup></a> This means -<span class='pageno' id='Page_339'>339</span>surely that the Pythagoreans had failed to give any -clear account of the relation between these more or less -fanciful analogies and their quasi-geometrical construction -of the universe. And this is, after all, really Zeller’s -own view. He has shown that in the Pythagorean -cosmology the numbers were regarded as spatial,<a id='r797' /><a href='#f797' class='c014'><sup>[797]</sup></a> and -he has also shown that the cosmology was the whole -of the system.<a id='r798' /><a href='#f798' class='c014'><sup>[798]</sup></a> We have only to bring these two -things together to arrive at the interpretation given -above.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The numbers and the elements.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec147'></a>147. When we come to details, we seem to see that -what distinguished the Pythagoreanism of this period -from its earlier form was that it sought to adapt itself -to the new theory of “elements.” It is just this which -makes it necessary for us to take up the consideration -of the system once more in connexion with the -pluralists. When the Pythagoreans returned to -Southern Italy, they must have found views prevalent -there which imperatively demanded a partial reconstruction -of their own system. We do not know that -Empedokles founded a philosophical society, but there -can be no doubt of his influence on the medical school -of these regions; and we also know now that Philolaos -<span class='pageno' id='Page_340'>340</span>played a part in the history of medicine.<a id='r799' /><a href='#f799' class='c014'><sup>[799]</sup></a> This discovery -gives us the clue to the historical connexion, -which formerly seemed obscure. The tradition is that -the Pythagoreans explained the elements as built up -of geometrical figures, a theory which we can study -for ourselves in the more developed form which it -attained in Plato’s <cite>Timaeus</cite>.<a id='r800' /><a href='#f800' class='c014'><sup>[800]</sup></a> If they were to retain -their position as the leaders of medical study in Italy, -they were bound to account for the elements.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We must not take it for granted, however, that the -Pythagorean construction of the elements was exactly -the same as that which we find in Plato’s <cite>Timaeus</cite>. -It has been mentioned already that there is good -reason for believing they only knew three of the regular -solids, the cube, the pyramid (tetrahedron), and the -dodecahedron.<a id='r801' /><a href='#f801' class='c014'><sup>[801]</sup></a> Now it is very significant that Plato -starts from fire and earth,<a id='r802' /><a href='#f802' class='c014'><sup>[802]</sup></a> and in the construction of -the elements proceeds in such a way that the octahedron -and the icosahedron can easily be transformed into -pyramids, while the cube and the dodecahedron cannot. -From this it follows that, while air and water pass -readily into fire, earth cannot do so,<a id='r803' /><a href='#f803' class='c014'><sup>[803]</sup></a> and the dodecahedron -<span class='pageno' id='Page_341'>341</span>is reserved for another purpose, which we shall -consider presently. This would exactly suit the -Pythagorean system; for it would leave room for a -dualism of the kind outlined in the Second Part of the -poem of Parmenides. We know that Hippasos made -Fire the first principle, and we see from the <cite>Timaeus</cite> -how it would be possible to represent air and water as -forms of fire. The other element is, however, earth, -not air, as we have seen reason to believe that it was -in early Pythagoreanism. That would be a natural result -of the discovery of atmospheric air by Empedokles -and of his general theory of the elements. It would -also explain the puzzling fact, which we had to leave -unexplained above, that Aristotle identifies the two -“forms” spoken of by Parmenides with Fire and -Earth.<a id='r804' /><a href='#f804' class='c014'><sup>[804]</sup></a> All this is, of course, problematical; but it -will not be found easy to account otherwise for the -facts.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The dodecahedron.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec148'></a>148. The most interesting point in the theory is, -perhaps, the use made of the dodecahedron. It was -identified, we are told, with the “sphere of the universe,” -or, as it is put in the Philolaic fragment, with the “hull -of the sphere.”<a id='r805' /><a href='#f805' class='c014'><sup>[805]</sup></a> Whatever we may think of the authenticity -of the fragments, there is no reason to doubt that -this is a genuine Pythagorean expression, and it must -be taken in close connexion with the word “keel” -<span class='pageno' id='Page_342'>342</span>applied to the central fire.<a id='r806' /><a href='#f806' class='c014'><sup>[806]</sup></a> The structure of the -world was compared to the building of a ship, an idea -of which there are other traces.<a id='r807' /><a href='#f807' class='c014'><sup>[807]</sup></a> The key to what we -are told of the dodecahedron is given by Plato. In -the <cite>Phaedo</cite> we read that the “true earth,” if looked at -from above, is “many-coloured like the balls that are -made of twelve pieces of leather.”<a id='r808' /><a href='#f808' class='c014'><sup>[808]</sup></a> In the <cite>Timaeus</cite> the -same thing is referred to in these words: “Further, -as there is still one construction left, the fifth, God -made use of it for the universe when he painted it.”<a id='r809' /><a href='#f809' class='c014'><sup>[809]</sup></a> -The point is that the dodecahedron approaches more -nearly to the sphere than any other of the regular -solids. The twelve pieces of leather used to make a -ball would all be regular pentagons; and, if the -material were not flexible like leather, we should have -a dodecahedron instead of a sphere. This points to -the Pythagoreans having had at least the rudiments -of the “method of exhaustion” formulated later by -Eudoxos. They must have studied the properties of -circles by means of inscribed polygons and those of -spheres by means of inscribed solids.<a id='r810' /><a href='#f810' class='c014'><sup>[810]</sup></a> That gives us -a high idea of their mathematical attainments; but -<span class='pageno' id='Page_343'>343</span>that it is not too high, is shown by the fact that the -famous lunules of Hippokrates date from the middle -of the fifth century. The inclusion of <em>straight</em> -and <em>curved</em> in the “table of opposites” under the -head of Limit and Unlimited points in the same -direction.<a id='r811' /><a href='#f811' class='c014'><sup>[811]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The tradition confirms in an interesting way the -importance of the dodecahedron in the Pythagorean -system. According to one account, Hippasos was -drowned at sea for revealing its construction and claiming -the discovery as his own.<a id='r812' /><a href='#f812' class='c014'><sup>[812]</sup></a> What that construction -was, we may partially infer from the fact that the -Pythagoreans adopted the pentagram or <em>pentalpha</em> as -their symbol. The use of this figure in later magic is -well known; and Paracelsus still employed it as a -symbol of health, which is exactly what the Pythagoreans -called it.<a id='r813' /><a href='#f813' class='c014'><sup>[813]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Soul a “Harmony.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec149'></a>149. The view that the soul is a “harmony,” or -rather an attunement, is intimately connected with the -theory of the four elements. It cannot have belonged -to the earliest form of Pythagoreanism; for, as shown -in Plato’s <cite>Phaedo</cite>, it is quite inconsistent with the idea -that the soul can exist independently of the body. It -is the very opposite of the belief that “any soul can -enter any body.”<a id='r814' /><a href='#f814' class='c014'><sup>[814]</sup></a> On the other hand, we know also -from the <cite>Phaedo</cite> that it was accepted by Simmias and -Kebes, who had heard Philolaos at Thebes, and by -Echekrates of Phleious, who was the disciple of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_344'>344</span>Philolaos and Eurytos.<a id='r815' /><a href='#f815' class='c014'><sup>[815]</sup></a> The account of the doctrine -given by Plato is quite in accordance with the view -that it was of medical origin. Simmias says: “Our -body being, as it were, strung and held together by -the warm and the cold, the dry and the moist, and -things of that sort, our soul is a sort of temperament -and attunement of these, when they are mingled with -one another well and in due proportion. If, then, our -soul is an attunement, it is clear that, when the body -has been relaxed or strung up out of measure by -diseases and other ills, the soul must necessarily perish -at once.”<a id='r816' /><a href='#f816' class='c014'><sup>[816]</sup></a> This is clearly an application of the theory -of Alkmaion (<a href='#sec96'>§ 96</a>), and is in accordance with the -views of the Sicilian school of medicine. It completes -the evidence that the Pythagoreanism of the end of -the fifth century was an adaptation of the old doctrine -to the new principles introduced by Empedokles.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The central fire.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec150'></a>150. The planetary system which Aristotle attributes -to “the Pythagoreans” and Aetios to Philolaos is -sufficiently remarkable.<a id='r817' /><a href='#f817' class='c014'><sup>[817]</sup></a> The earth is no longer in -the middle of the world; its place is taken by a -central fire, which is not to be identified with the sun. -Round this fire revolve ten bodies. First comes the -<em>Antichthon</em> or Counter-earth, and next the earth, which -thus becomes one of the planets. After the earth -comes the moon, then the sun, the five planets, and -the heaven of the fixed stars. We do not see the -central fire and the <em>antichthon</em> because the side of the -earth on which we live is always turned away from -<span class='pageno' id='Page_345'>345</span>them. This is to be explained by the analogy of the -moon. That body always presents the same face to -us; and men living on the other side of it would never -see the earth. This implies, of course, that all these -bodies rotate on their axes in the same time as they -revolve round the central fire.<a id='r818' /><a href='#f818' class='c014'><sup>[818]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>It is not very easy to accept the view that this -system was taught by Philolaos. Aristotle nowhere -mentions him in connexion with it, and in the <cite>Phaedo</cite> -Plato gives a description of the earth and its position -in the world which is entirely opposed to it, but is -accepted without demur by Simmias the disciple of -Philolaos.<a id='r819' /><a href='#f819' class='c014'><sup>[819]</sup></a> It is undoubtedly a Pythagorean theory, -however, and marks a noticeable advance on the -Ionian views then current at Athens. It is clear too -that Plato states it as something of a novelty that the -earth does not require the support of air or anything -of the sort to keep it in its place. Even Anaxagoras -had not been able to shake himself free of that idea, -and Demokritos still held it.<a id='r820' /><a href='#f820' class='c014'><sup>[820]</sup></a> The natural inference -from the <cite>Phaedo</cite> would certainly be that the theory of -a spherical earth, kept in the middle of the world by -its equilibrium, was that of Philolaos himself. If so, -the doctrine of the central fire would belong to a somewhat -later generation of the school, and Plato may -<span class='pageno' id='Page_346'>346</span>have learnt it from Archytas and his friends after he -had written the <cite>Phaedo</cite>. However that may be, it is -of such importance that it cannot be omitted here.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is commonly supposed that the revolution of the -earth round the central fire was intended to account -for the alternation of day and night, and it is clear that -an orbital motion of the kind just described would -have the same effect as the rotation of the earth on its -axis. As the same side of the earth is always turned -to the central fire, the side upon which we live will -be turned towards the sun when the earth is on the -same side of the central fire, and turned away from it -when the earth and sun are on opposite sides. This -view appears to derive some support from the statement -of Aristotle that the earth “being in motion -round the centre, produces day and night.”<a id='r821' /><a href='#f821' class='c014'><sup>[821]</sup></a> That -remark, however, would prove too much; for in the -<cite>Timaeus</cite> Plato calls the earth “the guardian and -artificer of night and day,” while at the same time he -declares that the alternation of day and night is caused -by the diurnal revolution of the heavens.<a id='r822' /><a href='#f822' class='c014'><sup>[822]</sup></a> That is -explained, no doubt quite rightly, by saying that, even -if the earth were regarded as at rest, it could still be -said to produce day and night; for night is due to -the intervention of the earth between the sun and the -hemisphere opposite to it. If we remember how recent -was the discovery that night was the shadow of the -earth, we shall see how it may have been worth while -to say this explicitly.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In any case, it is wholly incredible that the heaven -<span class='pageno' id='Page_347'>347</span>of the fixed stars should have been regarded as -stationary. That would have been the most startling -paradox that any scientific man had yet propounded, -and we should have expected the comic poets and -popular literature generally to raise the cry of atheism -at once. Above all, we should have expected Aristotle -to say something about it. He made the circular -motion of the heavens the very keystone of his system, -and would have regarded the theory of a stationary -heaven as blasphemous. Now he argues against those -who, like the Pythagoreans and Plato, regarded the -earth as in motion;<a id='r823' /><a href='#f823' class='c014'><sup>[823]</sup></a> but he does not attribute the -view that the heavens are stationary to any one. There -is no necessary connexion between the two ideas. All -the heavenly bodies may be moving as rapidly as we -please, provided that their relative motions are such -as to account for the phenomena.<a id='r824' /><a href='#f824' class='c014'><sup>[824]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>It seems probable that the theory of the earth’s -revolution round the central fire really originated in -the account given by Empedokles of the sun’s light. -The two things are brought into close connexion by -Aetios, who says that Empedokles believed in two -suns, while Philolaos believed in two or even in three.<a id='r825' /><a href='#f825' class='c014'><sup>[825]</sup></a> -<span class='pageno' id='Page_348'>348</span>The theory of Empedokles is unsatisfactory in so far -as it gives two inconsistent explanations of night. It -is, we have seen, the shadow of the earth; but at the -same time Empedokles recognised a fiery diurnal -hemisphere and a nocturnal hemisphere with only a -little fire in it.<a id='r826' /><a href='#f826' class='c014'><sup>[826]</sup></a> All this could be simplified by the -hypothesis of a central fire which is the true source of -light. Such a theory would, in fact, be the natural -issue of the recent discoveries as to the moon’s light -and the cause of eclipses, if that theory were extended -so as to include the sun.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The central fire received a number of mythological -names. It was called the Hestia or “hearth of the -universe,” the “house” or “watch-tower” of Zeus, and -the “mother of the gods.”<a id='r827' /><a href='#f827' class='c014'><sup>[827]</sup></a> That was in the manner -of the school; but these names must not blind us to -the fact that we are dealing with a real scientific -hypothesis. It was a great thing to see that the -phenomena could best be “saved” by a central -luminary, and that the earth must therefore be a revolving -sphere like the planets. Indeed, we are almost -tempted to say that the identification of the central -fire with the sun, which was suggested for the first time -in the Academy, is a mere detail in comparison. The -great thing was that the earth should definitely take -its place among the planets; for once it has done so, -we can proceed to search for the true “hearth” of -the planetary system at our leisure. It is probable, at -any rate, that it was this theory which made it possible -<span class='pageno' id='Page_349'>349</span>for Herakleides of Pontos and Aristarchos of Samos -to reach the heliocentric hypothesis,<a id='r828' /><a href='#f828' class='c014'><sup>[828]</sup></a> and it was -certainly Aristotle’s reversion to the geocentric theory -which made it necessary for Copernicus to discover the -truth afresh. We have his own word for it that the -Pythagorean theory put him on the right track.<a id='r829' /><a href='#f829' class='c014'><sup>[829]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The <em>antichthon</em>.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec151'></a>151. The existence of the <em>antichthon</em> was also a -hypothesis intended to account for the phenomena of -eclipses. In one place, indeed, Aristotle says that the -Pythagoreans invented it in order to bring the number -of revolving bodies up to ten;<a id='r830' /><a href='#f830' class='c014'><sup>[830]</sup></a> but that is a mere -sally, and Aristotle really knew better. In his work -on the Pythagoreans, we are told, he said that eclipses -of the moon were caused sometimes by the intervention -of the earth and sometimes by that of the -<em>antichthon</em>; and the same statement was made by -Philip of Opous, a very competent authority on the -matter.<a id='r831' /><a href='#f831' class='c014'><sup>[831]</sup></a> Indeed, Aristotle shows in another passage -exactly how the theory originated. He tells us that -some thought there might be a considerable number -of bodies revolving round the centre, though invisible -<span class='pageno' id='Page_350'>350</span>to us because of the intervention of the earth, and that -they accounted in this way for there being more -eclipses of the moon than of the sun.<a id='r832' /><a href='#f832' class='c014'><sup>[832]</sup></a> This is -mentioned in close connexion with the <em>antichthon</em>, so -there is no doubt that Aristotle regarded the two -hypotheses as of the same nature. The history of the -theory seems to be this. Anaximenes had assumed -the existence of dark planets to account for the -frequency of lunar eclipses (<a href='#sec29'>§ 29</a>), and Anaxagoras -had revived that view (<a href='#sec135'>§ 135</a>). Certain Pythagoreans<a id='r833' /><a href='#f833' class='c014'><sup>[833]</sup></a> -had placed these dark planets between the earth and -the central fire in order to account for their invisibility, -and the next stage was to reduce them to a single -body. Here again we see how the Pythagoreans tried -to simplify the hypotheses of their predecessors.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Planetary motions.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec152'></a>152. We must not assume that even the later Pythagoreans -made the sun, moon, and planets, including the -earth, revolve in the opposite direction to the heaven of -the fixed stars. It is true that Alkmaion is said to -have agreed with “some of the mathematicians”<a id='r834' /><a href='#f834' class='c014'><sup>[834]</sup></a> in -holding this view, but it is never ascribed to Pythagoras -or even to Philolaos. The old theory was, as we have -seen (<a href='#sec54'>§ 54</a>), that all the heavenly bodies revolved in the -same direction, from east to west, but that the planets -revolved more slowly the further they were removed -<span class='pageno' id='Page_351'>351</span>from the heavens, so that those which are nearest the -earth are “overtaken” by those that are further away. -This view was still maintained by Demokritos, and that -it was also Pythagorean, seems to follow from what we -are told about the “harmony of the spheres.” We -have seen (<a href='#sec54'>§ 54</a>) that we cannot attribute this theory -in its later form to the Pythagoreans of the fifth -century, but we have the express testimony of Aristotle -to the fact that those Pythagoreans whose doctrine he -knew believed that the heavenly bodies produced -musical notes in their courses. Further, the velocities -of these bodies depended on the distances between -them, and these corresponded to the intervals of the -octave. He distinctly implies that the heaven of the -fixed stars takes part in the concert; for he mentions -“the sun, the moon, and the stars, so great in magnitude -and in number as they are,” a phrase which cannot -refer solely or chiefly to the remaining five planets.<a id='r835' /><a href='#f835' class='c014'><sup>[835]</sup></a> -Further, we are told that the slower bodies give out -a deep note and the swifter a high note.<a id='r836' /><a href='#f836' class='c014'><sup>[836]</sup></a> Now the -prevailing tradition gives the high note of the octave to -the heaven of the fixed stars,<a id='r837' /><a href='#f837' class='c014'><sup>[837]</sup></a> from which it follows -<span class='pageno' id='Page_352'>352</span>that all the heavenly bodies revolve in the same -direction, and that their velocity increases in proportion -to their distance from the centre.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The theory that the proper motion of the sun, -moon, and planets is from west to east, and that they -also share in the motion from east to west of the -heaven of the fixed stars, makes its first appearance in -the Myth of Er in Plato’s <cite>Republic</cite>, and is fully worked -out in the <cite>Timaeus</cite>. In the <cite>Republic</cite> it is still associated -with the “harmony of the spheres,” though we are not -told how it is reconciled with that theory in detail.<a id='r838' /><a href='#f838' class='c014'><sup>[838]</sup></a> -In the <cite>Timaeus</cite> we read that the slowest of the heavenly -bodies appear the fastest and <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>vice versa</i></span>; and, as this -statement is put into the mouth of a Pythagorean, we -might suppose the theory of a composite movement to -have been anticipated by some members at least of -that school.<a id='r839' /><a href='#f839' class='c014'><sup>[839]</sup></a> That is, of course, possible; for the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_353'>353</span>Pythagoreans were singularly open to new ideas. At -the same time, we must note that the theory is even -more emphatically expressed by the Athenian Stranger -in the <cite>Laws</cite>, who is in a special sense Plato himself. -If we were to praise the runners who come in last in -the race, we should not do what is pleasing to the -competitors; and in the same way it cannot be pleasing -to the gods when we suppose the slowest of the -heavenly bodies to be the fastest. The passage undoubtedly -conveys the impression that Plato is expounding -a novel theory.<a id='r840' /><a href='#f840' class='c014'><sup>[840]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Things likenesses of numbers.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec153'></a>153. We have still to consider a view, which -Aristotle sometimes attributes to the Pythagoreans, -that things were “like numbers.” He does not appear -to regard this as inconsistent with the doctrine that -things <em>are</em> numbers, though it is hard to see how he -could reconcile the two.<a id='r841' /><a href='#f841' class='c014'><sup>[841]</sup></a> There is no doubt, however, -that Aristoxenos represented the Pythagoreans as -teaching that things were <em>like</em> numbers,<a id='r842' /><a href='#f842' class='c014'><sup>[842]</sup></a> and there are -other traces of an attempt to make out that this was -the original doctrine. A letter was produced, purporting -to be by Theano, the wife of Pythagoras, in which -she says that she hears many of the Hellenes think -Pythagoras said things were made <em>of</em> number, whereas -<span class='pageno' id='Page_354'>354</span>he really said they were made <em>according to</em> number.<a id='r843' /><a href='#f843' class='c014'><sup>[843]</sup></a> -It is amusing to notice that this fourth-century theory -had to be explained away in its turn later on, and -Iamblichos actually tells us that it was Hippasos who -said number was the exemplar of things.<a id='r844' /><a href='#f844' class='c014'><sup>[844]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>When this view is uppermost in his mind, Aristotle -seems to find only a verbal difference between Plato -and the Pythagoreans. The metaphor of “participation” -was merely substituted for that of “imitation.” -This is not the place to discuss the meaning of Plato’s -so-called “theory of ideas”; but it must be pointed -out that Aristotle’s ascription of the doctrine of -“imitation” to the Pythagoreans is abundantly -justified by the <cite>Phaedo</cite>. The arguments for immortality -given in the early part of that dialogue come from -various sources. Those derived from the doctrine of -Reminiscence, which has sometimes been supposed to -be Pythagorean, are only known to the Pythagoreans -by hearsay, and Simmias requires to have the whole -psychology of the subject explained to him.<a id='r845' /><a href='#f845' class='c014'><sup>[845]</sup></a> When, -however, we come to the question what it is that our -sensations remind us of, his attitude changes. The -view that the equal itself is alone real, and that what -we call equal things are imperfect imitations of it, is -quite familiar to him.<a id='r846' /><a href='#f846' class='c014'><sup>[846]</sup></a> He requires no proof of it, and -is finally convinced of the immortality of the soul just -because Sokrates makes him see that the theory of -forms implies it.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is also to be observed that Sokrates does not -introduce the theory as a novelty. The reality of the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_355'>355</span>“ideas” is the sort of reality “we are always talking -about,” and they are explained in a peculiar vocabulary -which is represented as that of a school. The technical -terms are introduced by such formulas as “we say.”<a id='r847' /><a href='#f847' class='c014'><sup>[847]</sup></a> -Whose theory is it? It is usually supposed to be -Plato’s own, though nowadays it is the fashion to call -it his “early theory of ideas,” and to say that he -modified it profoundly in later life. But there are -serious difficulties in this view. Plato is very careful -to tell us that he was not present at the conversation -recorded in the <cite>Phaedo</cite>. Did any philosopher ever -propound a new theory of his own by representing it -as already familiar to a number of distinguished living -contemporaries? It is not easy to believe that. It -would be rash, on the other hand, to ascribe the theory -to Sokrates, and there seems nothing for it but to -suppose that the doctrine of “forms” (εἴδη, ἰδέαι) -originally took shape in Pythagorean circles, perhaps -under Sokratic influence. There is nothing startling in -this. It is a historical fact that Simmias and Kebes -were not only Pythagoreans but disciples of Sokrates; -for, by a happy chance, the good Xenophon has included -them in his list of true Sokratics.<a id='r848' /><a href='#f848' class='c014'><sup>[848]</sup></a> We have also -sufficient ground for believing that the Megarians had -adopted a like theory under similar influences, and -Plato states expressly that Eukleides and Terpsion of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_356'>356</span>Megara were present at the conversation recorded in -the <cite>Phaedo</cite>. There were, no doubt, more “friends of -the ideas”<a id='r849' /><a href='#f849' class='c014'><sup>[849]</sup></a> than we generally recognise. It is certain, -in any case, that the use of the words εἴδη and ἰδέαι to -express ultimate realities is pre-Platonic, and it seems -most natural to regard it as of Pythagorean origin.<a id='r850' /><a href='#f850' class='c014'><sup>[850]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>We have really exceeded the limits of this work by -tracing the history of Pythagoreanism down to a point -where it becomes practically indistinguishable from the -earliest form of Platonism; but it was necessary to do -so in order to put the statements of our authorities in -their true light. Aristoxenos is not likely to have been -mistaken with regard to the opinions of the men he -had known personally, and Aristotle’s statements must -have had some foundation. We must assume, then, -a later form of Pythagoreanism which was closely akin -to early Platonism. That, however, is not the form of -it which concerns us here, and we shall see in the next -chapter that the fifth-century doctrine was of the more -primitive type already described.</p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f732'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r732'>732</a>. For Philolaos, see Plato, <cite>Phd.</cite> 61 d 7; e 7; and for Lysis, Aristoxenos -in Iambl. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 250 (R. P. 59 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f733'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r733'>733</a>. Diog. viii. 79-83 (R. P. 61). Aristoxenos himself came from Taras. -For the political activity of the Tarentine Pythagoreans, see Meyer, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. -des Alterth.</cite></span> v. § 824. The story of Damon and Phintias (told by -Aristoxenos) belongs to this time.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f734'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r734'>734</a>. Diog. viii. 46 (R. P. 62).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f735'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r735'>735</a>. Compare the way in which the <cite>Theaetetus</cite> is dedicated to the school -of Megara.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f736'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r736'>736</a>. See Aristoxenos <i>ap.</i> Val. Max. viii. 13, ext. 3; and Souidas <i>s.v.</i></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f737'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r737'>737</a>. See below, <a href='#sec150'>§ 150–152</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f738'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r738'>738</a>. Plato, <cite>Phd.</cite> 61 d 6.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f739'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r739'>739</a>. This appears to follow at once from the remark of Simmias in <cite>Phd.</cite> -64 b. The whole passage would be pointless if the words φιλόσοφος, -φιλοσοφεῖν, φιλοσοφία had not in some way become familiar to the ordinary -Theban of the fifth century. Now Herakleides Pontikos made Pythagoras -invent the word, and expound it in a conversation with Leon, tyrant of -Sikyon <cite>or Phleious</cite>. Cf. Diog. i. 12 (R. P. 3), viii. 8; Cic. <cite>Tusc.</cite> v. 3. 8; -Döring in <cite>Arch.</cite> v. pp. 505 sqq. It seems to me that the way in which the -term is introduced in the <cite>Phaedo</cite> is fatal to the view that this is a Sokratic -idea transferred by Herakleides to the Pythagoreans. Cf. also the remark -of Alkidamas quoted by Arist. <cite>Rhet.</cite> Β, 23. 1398 b 18, Θήβησιν ἅμα οἱ -προστάται φιλόσοφοι ἐγένοντο καὶ εὐδαιμόνησεν ἡ πόλις.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f740'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r740'>740</a>. For reasons which will appear, I do not attach importance in this -connexion to Philolaos, fr. 14 Diels = 23 Mullach (R. P. 89), but it does -seem likely that the μυθολογῶν κομψὸς ἀνήρ of <cite>Gorg.</cite> 493 a 5 (R. P. 89 b) -is responsible for the whole theory there given. He is certainly, in any -case, the author of the τετρημένος πίθος, which implies the same general -view. Now he is called ἴσως Σικελός τις ἢ Ἰταλικός, which means he was -an Italian; for the Σικελός τις is merely an allusion to the Σικελὸς κομψὸς -ἀνὴρ ποτὶ τὰν ματέρ’ ἔφα of Timokreon. We do not know of any Italian -from whom Plato could have learnt these views except Philolaos or one of -his disciples. They may, however, be originally Orphic for all that (cf. -R. P. 89 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f741'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r741'>741</a>. See above, Chap. II. p. 113, <a href='#f236'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 236</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f742'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r742'>742</a>. It is a good illustration of the defective character of our tradition -(Introd. <a href='#In.13'>§ XIII</a>.) that this was quite unknown till the publication of the -extracts from Menon’s <cite>Iatrika</cite> contained in the Anonymus Londinensis. -The extract referring to Philolaos is given and discussed by Diels in -<cite>Hermes</cite>, xxviii. pp. 417 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f743'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r743'>743</a>. <cite>Hermes</cite>, <i>loc. cit.</i></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f744'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r744'>744</a>. Plato, <cite>Phileb.</cite> 16 c sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f745'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r745'>745</a>. Diog. iii. 37. For similar charges, cf. Zeller, <cite>Plato</cite>, p. 429, n. 7.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f746'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r746'>746</a>. Iambl. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 199. Diels is clearly right in ascribing the story to -Aristoxenos (<cite>Arch.</cite> iii. p. 461, n. 26).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f747'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r747'>747</a>. Timon <i>ap.</i> Gell. iii. 17 (R. P. 60 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f748'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r748'>748</a>. For Hermippos and Satyros, see Diog. iii. 9; viii. 84, 85.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f749'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r749'>749</a>. So Iambl. <cite>in Nicom.</cite> p. 105, 11; Proclus, <cite>in Tim.</cite> p. 1, Diehl.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f750'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r750'>750</a>. Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vors.</cite></span> p. 269.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f751'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r751'>751</a>. They are τὰ θρυλούμενα τρία βιβλία (Iambl. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 199), τὰ διαβόητα -τρία βιβλία (Diog. viii. 15).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f752'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r752'>752</a>. As Mr. Bywater says (<cite>J. Phil.</cite> i. p. 29), the history of this work -“reads like the history, not so much of a book, as of a literary <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>ignis fatuus</i></span> -floating before the minds of imaginative writers.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f753'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r753'>753</a>. Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Ein gefälschtes Pythagorasbuch”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> iii. pp. 451 sqq.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f754'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r754'>754</a>. Diog. viii. 85 (R. P. 63 b). Diels reads πρῶτον ἐκδοῦναι τῶν -Πυθαγορικῶν <βιβλία καὶ ἐπιγράψαι Περὶ> Φύσεως.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f755'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r755'>755</a>. Diog. viii. 7.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f756'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r756'>756</a>. Proclus, <cite>in Eucl.</cite> p. 22, 15 (Friedlein). Cf. Boeckh, <cite>Philolaos</cite>, -pp. 36 sqq. Boeckh refers to a sculptured group of <em>three</em> Bakchai, whom he -supposes to be Ino, Agaue, and Autonoe.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f757'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r757'>757</a>. The passage is given in R. P. 68. For a full discussion of this and -the other fragments, see Bywater, “On the Fragments attributed to -Philolaus the Pythagorean” (<cite>J. Phil.</cite> i. pp. 21 sqq.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f758'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r758'>758</a>. Boeckh, <cite>Philolaos</cite>, p. 38. Diels (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vors.</cite></span> p. 246) distinguishes the <cite>Bakchai</cite> -from the three books Περὶ φύσιος (<i>ib.</i> p. 239). As, however, he identifies -the latter with the “three books” bought from Philolaos, and regards it as -genuine, this does not seriously affect the argument.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f759'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r759'>759</a>. See Diels in <cite>Arch.</cite> iii. pp. 460 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f760'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r760'>760</a>. On the Achaian dialect, see O. Hoffmann in Collitz and Bechtel, -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Dialekt-Inschriften</cite></span>, vol. ii. p. 151. How slowly Doric penetrated into the -Chalkidian states may be seen from the mixed dialect of the inscription of -Mikythos of Rhegion (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Dial.-Inschr.</cite></span> iii. 2, p. 498), which is later than -468-67 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> There is no reason to suppose that the Achaian dialect of -Kroton was less tenacious of life.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f761'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r761'>761</a>. The scanty fragments contain one Doric form, ἔχοντι (fr. 1), but -Alkmaion calls himself Κροτωνιήτης, which is very significant; for -Κροτωνιάτας is the Achaian as well as the Doric form. He did not, -therefore, write a mixed dialect like that referred to in the last note. It -seems safest to assume with Wachtler, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>De Alcmaeone Crotoniata</cite></span>, pp. 21 -sqq., that he used Ionic.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f762'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r762'>762</a>. <cite>Arch.</cite> iii. p. 460.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f763'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r763'>763</a>. He is distinctly called a Krotoniate in the extracts from Menon’s -Ἰατρικά (cf. Diog. viii. 84). It is true that Aristoxenos called him and -Eurytos Tarentines (Diog. viii. 46), but this only means that he settled at -Taras after leaving Thebes. These variations are common in the case of -migratory philosophers. Eurytos is also called a Krotoniate and a Metapontine -(Iambl. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 148, 266). Cf. also p. 380, <a href='#f921'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 921</ins></a> on Leukippos, -and p. 406, <a href='#f988'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 988</ins></a> on Hippon.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f764'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r764'>764</a>. For Androkydes, see Diels, <cite>Vors.</cite> p. 281. As Diels points out (<cite>Arch.</cite> -iii. p. 461), even Lucian has sufficient sense of style to make Pythagoras -speak Ionic.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f765'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r765'>765</a>. Cf. fr. 12 = 20 M. (R. P. 79), τὰ ἐν τᾷ σφαίρᾳ σώματα πέντε ἐντί.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f766'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r766'>766</a>. Plato, <cite>Rep.</cite> 528 b.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f767'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r767'>767</a>. Heiberg’s Euclid, vol. v. p. 654, 1, Ἐν τούτῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ, τουτέστι -τῷ ιγ’, γράφεται τὰ λεγόμενα Πλάτωνος ε̄ σχήματα, ἃ αὐτοῦ μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν, -τρία δὲ τῶν προειρημένων ε̄ σχημάτων τῶν Πυθαγορείων ἐστίν, ὅ τε κύβος -καὶ ἡ πυραμὶς καὶ τὸ δωδεκάεδρον, Θεαιτήτου δὲ τό τε ὀκτάεδρον καὶ τὸ -εἰκοσάεδρον. It is no objection to this that, as Newbold points out (<cite>Arch.</cite> -xix. p. 204), the inscription of the dodecahedron is more difficult than that -of the octahedron and icosahedron. The Pythagoreans were not confined -to strict Euclidean methods. It may further be noted that Tannery comes -to a similar conclusion with regard to the musical scale described in the -fragment of Philolaos. He says: <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr">“Il n’y a jamais eu, pour la division du -tétracorde, une tradition pythagoricienne; on ne peut pas avec sûreté -remonter plus haut que Platon ou qu’Archytas”</span> (<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Rev. de Philologie</cite></span>, 1904, -p. 244).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f768'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r768'>768</a>. Aristotle says distinctly (<cite>Met.</cite> Α, 6. 987 b 25) that “to set up a dyad -instead of the unlimited regarded as one, and to make the unlimited consist -of the great and small, is distinctive of Plato.” Zeller seems to make an -unnecessary concession with regard to this passage (p. 368, n. 2; Eng. -trans. p. 396, n. 1).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f769'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r769'>769</a>. Zeller, p. 369 sqq. (Eng. trans. p. 397 sqq.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f770'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r770'>770</a>. For the doctrine of “Philolaos,” cf. fr. 1 = 2 Ch. (R. P. 64); and for -the unknowable ἐστὼ τῶν πραγμάτων, see fr. 3 = 4 Ch. (R. P. 67). It -has a suspicious resemblance to the later ὕλη, which Aristotle would hardly -have failed to note if he had ever seen the passage. He is always on the -lookout for anticipations of ὕλη.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f771'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r771'>771</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 8. 989 b 29 (R. P. 92 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f772'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r772'>772</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 8. 990 a 3, ὁμολογοῦντες τοῖς ἄλλοις φυσιολόγοις ὅτι τό -γ’ ὂν τοῦτ’ ἐστὶν ὅσον αἰσθητόν ἐστὶ καὶ περιείληφεν ὁ καλούμενος οὐρανός.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f773'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r773'>773</a>. <cite>Met. ib.</cite> 990 a 5, τὰς δ’ αἰτίας καὶ τὰς ἀρχάς, ὥσπερ εἴπομεν, ἱκανὰς -λέγουσιν ἐπαναβῆναι καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ἀνωτέρω τῶν ὄντων, καὶ μᾶλλον ἢ τοῖς -περὶ φύσεως λόγοις ἁρμοττούσας.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f774'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r774'>774</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 a 1, τὰ τῶν ἀριθμῶν στοιχεῖα τῶν ὄντων στοιχεῖα -πάντων ὑπέλαβον εἶναι; Ν, 3. 1090 a 22, εἶναι μὲν ἀριθμοὺς ἐποίησαν τὰ -ὄντα, οὐ χωριστοὺς δέ, ἀλλ’ ἐξ ἀριθμῶν τὰ ὄντα.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f775'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r775'>775</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Μ, 6. 1080 b 2, ὡς ἐκ τῶν ἀριθμῶν ἐνυπαρχόντων ὄντα τὰ -αἰσθητά; <i>ib.</i> 1080 b 17, ἐκ τούτου (τοῦ μαθηματικοῦ ἀριθμοῦ) τὰς αἰσθητὰς -οὐσίας συνεστάναι φασίν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f776'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r776'>776</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Μ, 8. 1083 b 11, τὰ σώματα ἐξ ἀριθμῶν εἶναι συγκείμενα; <i>ib.</i> -b 17, ἐκεῖνοι δὲ τὸν ἀριθμὸν τὰ ὄντα λέγουσιν· τὰ γοῦν θεωρήματα <a id='corr332.32'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='πρόσάπτουσι'>προσάπτουσι</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_332.32'><ins class='correction' title='πρόσάπτουσι'>προσάπτουσι</ins></a></span> -τοῖς σώμασιν ὡς ἐξ ἐκείνων ὄντων τῶν ἀριθμῶν; Ν, 3. 1090 a 32, -κατὰ μέντοι τὸ ποιεῖν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν τὰ φυσικὰ σώματα, ἐκ μὴ ἐχόντων βάρος -μηδὲ κουφότητα ἔχοντα κουφότητα καὶ βάρος.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f777'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r777'>777</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 a 2, τὸν ὅλον οὐρανὸν ἁρμονίαν εἶναι καὶ ἀριθμόν; Α, 8. -990 a 21, τὸν ἀριθμὸν τοῦτον ἐξ οὗ συνέστηκεν ὁ κόσμος; Μ, 6. 1080 b 18, -τὸν γὰρ ὅλον οὐρανὸν κατασκευάζουσιν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν; <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Γ, 1. 300 a 15, -τοῖς ἐξ ἀριθμῶν συνιστᾶσι τὸν οὐρανόν· ἔνιοι γὰρ τὴν φύσιν ἐξ ἀριθμῶν -συνιστᾶσιν, ὥσπερ τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινές.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f778'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r778'>778</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Ν, 3. 1091 a 18, κοσμοποιοῦσι καὶ φυσικῶς βούλονται λέγειν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f779'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r779'>779</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Μ, 6. 1080 b 16; Ν, 3. 1090 a 20.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f780'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r780'>780</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 987 a 15.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f781'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r781'>781</a>. <cite>Met. ib.</cite> 986 a 15 (R. P. 66).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f782'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r782'>782</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 6. 987 b 27, ὁ μὲν (Πλάτων) τοὺς ἀριθμοὺς παρὰ τὰ αἰσθητά, -οἱ δ’ (οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι) ἀριθμοὺς εἶναί φασιν αὐτὰ τὰ αἰσθητά.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f783'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r783'>783</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 a 17 (R. P. 66); <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 4. 203 a 10 (R. P. 66 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f784'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r784'>784</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 455, 20 (R. P. 66 a). I owe the passages which I -have used in illustration of this subject to W. A. Heidel, “Πέρας and ἄπειρον -in the Pythagorean Philosophy” (<cite>Arch.</cite> xiv. pp. 384 sqq.). The general -principle of my interpretation is also the same as his, though I think that, -by bringing the passage into connexion with the numerical figures, I have -avoided the necessity of regarding the words ἡ γὰρ εἰς ἴσα καὶ ἡμίση -διαίρεσις ἐπ’ ἄπειρον as “an attempted elucidation added by Simplicius.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f785'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r785'>785</a>. Aristoxenos, fr. 81, <i>ap.</i> Stob. i. p. 20, 1, ἐκ τῶν Ἀριστοξένου Περὶ ἀριθμητικῆς -... τῶν δὲ ἀριθμῶν ἄρτιοι μέν εἰσιν οἱ εἰς ἴσα διαιρούμενοι, περισσοὶ -δὲ οἱ εἰς ἄνισα καὶ μέσον ἔχοντες.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f786'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r786'>786</a>. [Plut.] <i>ap.</i> Stob. i. p. 22, 19, καὶ μὴν εἰς δύο διαιρουμένων ἴσα τοῦ -μὲν περισσοῦ μονὰς ἐν μέσῳ περιέστι, τοῦ δὲ ἀρτίου κενὴ λείπεται χώρα -καὶ ἀδέσποτος καὶ ἀνάριθμος, ὡς ἂν ἐνδεοῦς καὶ ἀτελοῦς ὄντος.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f787'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r787'>787</a>. Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de E apud Delphos</cite></span>, 388 a, ταῖς γὰρ εἰς ἴσα τομαῖς τῶν ἀριθμῶν, -ὁ μὲν ἄρτιος πάντῃ διϊστάμενος ὑπολείπει τινὰ δεκτικὴν ἀρχὴν οἷον ἐν -ἑαυτῷ καὶ χώραν, ἐν δὲ τῷ περιττῷ ταὐτὸ παθόντι μέσον ἀεὶ περίεστι τῆς -νεμήσεως γόνιμον. The words which I have omitted in translating refer -to the further identification of Odd and Even with Male and Female. The -passages quoted by Heidel might be added to. Cf., for instance, what -Nikomachos says (p. 13, 10, Hoche), ἔστι δὲ ἄρτιον μὲν ὃ οἷόν τε εἰς δύο ἴσα -διαιρεθῆναι μονάδος μέσον μὴ παρεμπιπτούσης, περιττὸν δὲ τὸ μὴ δυνάμενον -εἰς δύο ἴσα μερισθῆναι διὰ τὴν προειρημένην τῆς μονάδος μεσιτείαν. He -significantly adds that this definition is ἐκ τῆς δημώδους ὑπολήψεως.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f788'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r788'>788</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 4. 204 a 20 sqq., especially a 26, ἀλλὰ μὴν ὥσπερ ἀέρος -ἀὴρ μέρος, οὕτω καὶ ἄπειρον ἀπείρου, εἴ γε οὐσία ἐστὶ καὶ ἀρχή.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f789'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r789'>789</a>. See Chap. II. <a href='#sec53'>§ 53</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f790'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r790'>790</a>. Cf. Speusippos in the extract preserved in the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Theologumena arithmetica</cite></span>, -p. 61 (Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vors.</cite></span> p. 235), τὸ μὴν γὰρ ᾱ στιγμή, τὸ δὲ β̄ γραμμή, τὸ -δὲ τρία τρίγωνον, τὸ δὲ δ̄ πυραμίς. We know that Speusippos is following -Philolaos here. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Ζ, 11. 1036 b 12, καὶ ἀνάγουσι πάντα εἰς -τοὺς ἀριθμούς, καὶ γραμμῆς τὸν λόγον τὸν τῶν δύο εἶναί φασιν. The matter -is clearly put in the Scholia on Euclid (p. 78, 19, Heiberg), οἱ δὲ Πυθαγόρειοι -τὸ μὲν σημεῖον ἀνάλογον ἐλάμβανον μονάδι, δυάδι δὲ τὴν γραμμήν, καὶ τριάδι -τὸ ἐπίπεδον, τετράδι δὲ τὸ σῶμα. καίτοι Ἀριστοτέλης τριαδικῶς προσεληλυθέναι -φησὶ τὸ σῶμα, ὡς διάστημα πρῶτον λαμβάνων τὴν γραμμήν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f791'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r791'>791</a>. The identification of the point with the unit is referred to by Aristotle, -<cite>Phys.</cite> Ε, 3. 227 a 27.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f792'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r792'>792</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Μ, 6. 1080 b 18 sqq., 1083 b 8 sqq.; <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Γ, 1. 300 -a 16 (R. P. 76 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f793'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r793'>793</a>. Zeller, p. 381.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f794'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r794'>794</a>. We learn from Plato, <cite>Theaet.</cite> 148 b 1, that Theaitetos called surds, what -Euclid calls δυνάμει σύμμετρα, by the name of δυνάμεις, while rational -square roots were called μήκη. Now in <cite>Tim.</cite> 31 c 4 we find a division of -numbers into ὄγκοι and δυνάμεις, which seem to mean rational and irrational -quantities. Cf. also the use of ὄγκοι in <cite>Parm.</cite> 164 d. Zeno in his fourth -argument about motion, which, we shall see (<a href='#sec163'>§ 163</a>), was directed against the -Pythagoreans, used ὄγκοι for points. Aetios, i. 3, 19 (R. P. 76 b), says that -Ekphantos of Syracuse was the first of the Pythagoreans to say that their units -were corporeal. Probably, however, “Ekphantos” was a personage in -a dialogue of Herakleides (Tannery, <cite>Arch.</cite> xi. pp. 263 sqq.), and Herakleides -called the monads ἄναρμοι ὄγκοι (Galen, <cite>Hist. Phil.</cite> 18; <cite>Dox.</cite> p. -610).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f795'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r795'>795</a>. Zeller, p. 382.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f796'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r796'>796</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 8. 990 a 22 (R. P. 81 e). I read and interpret thus: -“For, seeing that, according to them, Opinion and Opportunity are in -a given part of the world, and a little above or below them Injustice and -Separation and Mixture,—in proof of which they allege that each of these -is a number,—and seeing that it is also the case (reading συμβαίνῃ with -Bonitz) that there is already in that part of the world a number of composite -magnitudes (<i>i.e.</i> composed of the Limit and the Unlimited), because -those affections (of number) are attached to their respective regions;—(seeing -that they hold these two things), the question arises whether the -number which we are to understand each of these things (Opinion, etc.) to -be is the same as the number in the world (<i>i.e.</i> the cosmological number) -or a different one.” I cannot doubt that these are the extended numbers -which are composed (συνίσταται) of the elements of number, the limited -and the unlimited, or, as Aristotle here says, the “affections of number,” -the odd and the even. Zeller’s view that “celestial bodies” are meant -comes near this, but the application is too narrow. Nor is it the number -(πλῆθος) of those bodies that is in question, but their magnitude (μέγεθος). -For other views of the passage, see Zeller, p. 391, n. 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f797'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r797'>797</a>. Zeller, p. 404.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f798'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r798'>798</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> pp. 467 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f799'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r799'>799</a>. All this has been put in its true light by the publication of the extract -from Menon’s Ἰατρικά, on which see p. 322, <a href='#f742'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 742</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f800'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r800'>800</a>. In Aet. ii. 6, 5 (R. P. 80) the theory is ascribed to Pythagoras, which -is an anachronism, as the mention of “elements” shows it must be later -than Empedokles. In his extract from the same source, Achilles says -οἱ Πυθαγόρειοι, which doubtless represents Theophrastos better. There is -a fragment of “Philolaos” bearing on the subject (R. P. 79), where the -regular solids must be meant by τὰ ἐν τᾷ σφαίρᾳ σώματα.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f801'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r801'>801</a>. See above, p. 329, <a href='#f767'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 767</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f802'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r802'>802</a>. Plato, <cite>Tim.</cite> 31 b 5.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f803'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r803'>803</a>. Plato, <cite>Tim.</cite> 54 c 4. It is to be observed that in <cite>Tim.</cite> 48 b 5 Plato says -of the construction of the elements οὐδείς πω γένεσιν αὐτῶν μεμήνυκεν, -which implies that there is some novelty in the theory as he makes Timaios -state it. If we read the passage in the light of what has been said in § 141, -we shall be inclined to believe that Plato is working out the Pythagorean -doctrine on the lines of the discovery of Theaitetos. There is another -indication of the same thing in Arist. <cite>Gen. Corr.</cite> Β, 3. 330 b 16, where we -are told that, in the Διαιρέσεις, Plato assumed three elements, but made the -middle one a mixture. This is stated in close connexion with the ascription -of Fire and Earth to Parmenides.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f804'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r804'>804</a>. See above, Chap. IV. p. 213, <a href='#f462'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 462</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f805'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r805'>805</a>. Aet. ii. 6, 5 (R. P. 80); “Philolaos,” fr. 12 (= 20 M.; R. P. 79). On -the ὁλκάς, see Gundermann in <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Rhein. Mus.</cite></span> 1904, pp. 145 sqq. I agree -with him in holding that the reading is sound, and that the word means -“ship,” but I think that it is the structure, not the motion, of a ship which -is the point of comparison.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f806'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r806'>806</a>. Aet. ii. 4, 15, ὅπερ τρόπεως δίκην προϋπεβάλετο τῇ τοῦ παντὸς -<σφαίρᾳ> ὁ δημιουργὸς θεός.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f807'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r807'>807</a>. Cf. the ὑποζώματα of Plato, <cite>Rep.</cite> 616 c 3. As ὕλη generally means -“timber” for shipbuilding (when it does not mean firewood), I suggest -that we should look in this direction for an explanation of the technical use -of the word in later philosophy. Cf. Plato, <cite>Phileb.</cite> 54 c 1, γενέσεως ... -ἕνεκα ... πᾶσαν ὕλην παρατίθεσθαι πᾶσιν, which is part of the answer to -the question πότερα πλοίων ναυπηγίαν ἕνεκα φῂς γίγνεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ πλοῖα -ἕνεκα ναυπηγίας; (<i>ib.</i> b 2); <cite>Tim.</cite> 69 a 6, οἷα τέκτοσιν ἡμῖν ὕλη παράκειται.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f808'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r808'>808</a>. Plato, <cite>Phd.</cite> 110 b 6, ὥσπερ οἱ δωδεκάσκυτοι σφαῖραι with Wyttenbach’s -note.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f809'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r809'>809</a>. Plato, <cite>Tim.</cite> 55 c 4. Neither this passage nor the last can refer to the -Zodiac, which would be described by a dodecagon, not a dodecahedron. -What is implied is the division of the heavens into twelve pentagonal -fields.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f810'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r810'>810</a>. Gow, <cite>Short History of Greek Mathematics</cite>, pp. 164 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f811'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r811'>811</a>. This is pointed out by Kinkel, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gesch. der Phil.</cite></span> vol. i. p. 121.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f812'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r812'>812</a>. Iambl. <cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 247. Cf. above, Chap. II. p. 117, <a href='#f247'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 247</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f813'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r813'>813</a>. See Gow, <cite>Short History of Greek Mathematics</cite>, p. 151, and the passages -there referred to, adding Schol. Luc. p. 234, 21, Rabe, τὸ πεντάγραμμον] -ὅτι τὸ ἐν τῇ συνθείᾳ λεγόμενον πένταλφα σύμβολον ἦν πρὸς ἀλλήλους -Πυθαγορείων ἀναγνωριστικὸν καὶ τούτῳ ἐν ταῖς ἐπιστολαῖς ἐχρῶντο.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f814'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r814'>814</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> Α, 3. 407 b 20 (R. P. 86 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f815'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r815'>815</a>. Plato, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Phd.</cite></span> 85 e sqq.; and for Echekrates, <i>ib.</i> 88 d.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f816'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r816'>816</a>. Plato, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Phd.</cite></span> 86 b 7-c 5.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f817'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r817'>817</a>. For the authorities, see R. P. 81-83. The attribution of the theory -to Philolaos is perhaps due to Poseidonios. The “three books” were -doubtless in existence by his time.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f818'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r818'>818</a>. Plato attributes an axial rotation to the heavenly bodies (<cite>Tim.</cite> 40 a 7), -which must be of this kind. It is quite likely that the Pythagoreans -already did so, though Aristotle was unable to see the point. He says -(<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Β, 8. 290 a 24), ἀλλὰ μὴν ὅτι οὐδὲ κυλίεται τὰ ἄστρα, φανερόν· τὸ -μὲν γὰρ κυλιόμενον στρέφεσθαι ἀνάγκη, τῆς δὲ σελήνης ἀεὶ δηλόν ἐστι τὸ -καλούμενον πρόσωπον. This, of course, is just what proves it does rotate.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f819'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r819'>819</a>. Plato, <cite>Phd.</cite> 108 e 4 sqq. Simmias assents to this doctrine in the -emphatic words Καὶ ὀρθῶς γε.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f820'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r820'>820</a>. The primitive character of the astronomy taught by Demokritos as -compared with that of Plato is the best evidence of the value of the Pythagorean -researches.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f821'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r821'>821</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Β, 13. 293 a 18 sqq. (R. P. 83).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f822'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r822'>822</a>. Plato, <cite>Tim.</cite> 40 c 1, (γῆν) φύλακα καὶ δημιουργὸν νυκτός τε καὶ ἡμέρας -ἐμηχανήσατο. On the other hand, νὺξ μὲν οὖν ἡμέρα τε γέγονεν οὕτως -καὶ διὰ ταῦτα, ἡ τῆς μιᾶς καὶ φρονιμωτάτης κυκλήσεως περίοδος (39 c 1).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f823'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r823'>823</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Β, 13. 293 b 15 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f824'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r824'>824</a>. Boeckh admitted a very slow motion of the heaven of the fixed stars, -which he at first supposed to account for the precession of the equinoxes, -though he afterwards abandoned that hypothesis (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Untersuchungen</cite></span>, p. 93). -But, as Dreyer admits (<cite>Planetary Systems</cite>, p. 49), it is “not ... necessary -with Boeckh to suppose the motion of the starry sphere to have been an -exceedingly slow one, as it might in any case escape direct observation.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f825'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r825'>825</a>. Aet. ii. 20, 13 (Chap. IV. p. 275, <a href='#f609'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 609</ins></a>); cf. <i>ib.</i> 12 (of Philolaos), ὥστε -τρόπον τινὰ διττοὺς ἡλίους γίγνεσθαι, τό τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες καὶ τὸ -ἀπ’ αὐτοῦ πυροειδὲς κατὰ τὸ ἐσοπτροειδές· εἰ μή τις καὶ τρίτον λέξει τὴν ἀπὸ -τοῦ ἐνόπτρου κατ’ ἀνάκλασιν διασπειρομένην πρὸς ἡμᾶς αὐγήν. Here τὸ ἐν -τῷ οὐρανῷ πυρῶδες is the central fire, in accordance with the use of the -word οὐρανός explained in another passage of Aetios, Stob. <cite>Ecl.</cite> i. p. 196, -18 (R. P. 81). It seems to me that these strange notices must be fragments -of an attempt to show how the heliocentric hypothesis arose from the -theory of Empedokles as to the sun’s light. The meaning is that the -central fire really was the sun, but that Philolaos unnecessarily duplicated -it by supposing the visible sun to be its reflexion.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f826'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r826'>826</a>. Chap. VI. § <a href='#sec113'>113</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f827'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r827'>827</a>. Aet. i. 7, 7 (R. P. 81). Procl. <cite>in Tim.</cite> p. 106, 22, Diehl (R. P. 83 e).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f828'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r828'>828</a>. On these points, see Staigmüller, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Beiträge zur Gesch. der Naturwissenschaften -im klassichen Altertume</cite></span> (Progr., Stuttgart, 1899); and <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Herakleides -Pontikos und das heliokentrische System”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> xv. pp. 141 sqq.). Though, -for reasons which will partly appear from the following pages, I should not -put the matter exactly as Staigmüller does, I have no doubt that he is substantially -right. Diels had already expressed his adhesion to the view that -Herakleides was the real author of the heliocentric hypothesis (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Berl. Sitzb.</cite></span>, -1893, P. 18).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f829'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r829'>829</a>. In his letter to Pope Paul III., Copernicus quotes Plut. <cite>Plac.</cite> iii. 13, -2-3 (R. P. 83 a), and adds <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“Inde igitur occasionem nactus, coepi et ego de -terrae mobilitate cogitare.”</span> The whole passage is paraphrased by Dreyer, -<cite>Planetary Systems</cite>, p. 311. Cf. also the passage from the original MS., -which was first printed in the edition of 1873, translated by Dreyer, <i>ib.</i> pp. -314 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f830'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r830'>830</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 a 3 (R. P. 83 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f831'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r831'>831</a>. Aet. ii. 29, 4, τῶν Πυθαγορείων τινὲς κατὰ τὴν Ἀριστοτέλειον ἱστορίαν -καὶ τὴν Φιλίππου τοῦ Ὀπουντίου ἀπόφασιν ἀνταυγείᾳ καὶ ἀντιφράξει τοτὲ -μὲν τῆς γῆς, τοτὲ δὲ τῆς ἀντίχθονος (ἐκλείπειν τὴν σελήνην).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f832'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r832'>832</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Β, 13. 293 b 21, ἐνίοις δὲ δοκεῖ καὶ πλείω σώματα τοιαῦτα -ἐνδέχεσθαι φέρεσθαι περὶ τὸ μέσον ἡμῖν ἄδηλα διὰ τὴν ἐπιπρόσθησιν τῆς -γῆς. διὸ καὶ τὰς τῆς σελήνης ἐκλείψεις πλείους ἢ τὰς τοῦ ἡλίου γίγνεσθαί -φασιν· τῶν γὰρ φερομένων ἕκαστον ἀντιφράττειν αὐτήν, ἀλλ’ οὐ μόνον τὴν -γῆν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f833'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r833'>833</a>. It is not expressly stated that they were Pythagoreans, but it is natural -to suppose so. Such, at least, was Alexander’s opinion (Simpl. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, -P. 515, 25).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f834'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r834'>834</a>. The term οἱ μαθηματικοί is that used by Poseidonios for the Chaldæan -astrologers (Berossos). Diels, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Elementum</cite></span>, p. 11, n. 3. As we have seen, -the Babylonians knew the planets better than the Greeks.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f835'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r835'>835</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Β, 9. 290 b 12 sqq. (R. P. 82).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f836'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r836'>836</a>. Alexander, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>in Met.</cite></span> p. 39, 24 (from Aristotle’s work on the Pythagoreans), -τῶν γὰρ σωμάτων τῶν περὶ τὸ μέσον φερομένων ἐν ἀναλογίᾳ τὰς -ἀποστάσεις ἐχόντων ... ποιούντων δὲ καὶ ψόφον ἐν τῷ κινεῖσθαι τῶν μὲν -βραδυτέρων βαρύν, τῶν δὲ ταχυτέρων ὀξύν. We must not attribute the -identification of the seven planets with the seven strings of the heptachord -to the Pythagoreans of this date. Mercury and Venus have in the long -run the same velocity as the sun, and we must take in the earth and the fixed -stars. We can even find room for the <em>antichthon</em> as προσλαμβανόμενος.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f837'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r837'>837</a>. For the various systems, see Boeckh, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Kleine Schriften</cite></span>, vol. iii. -pp. 169 sqq., and Carl v. Jan, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Die Harmonie der Sphären”</span> (<cite>Philol.</cite> 1893, -pp. 13 sqq.). They vary with the astronomy of their authors, but they bear -witness to the fact stated in the text. Many give the highest note to Saturn -and the lowest to the Moon, while others reverse this. The system which -corresponds best, however, with the Pythagorean planetary system must -include the heaven of the fixed stars and the earth. It is that upon which -the verses of Alexander of Ephesos quoted by Theon of Smyrna, p. 140, -4, are based:</p> - -<div class='lg-container-b c015'> - <div class='linegroup'> - <div class='group'> - <div class='line'>γαῖα μὲν οὖν ὑπάτη τε βαρεῖά τε μέσσοθι ναίει·</div> - <div class='line'>ἀπλανέων δὲ σφαῖρα συνημμένη ἔπλετο νήτη, κ.τ.λ.</div> - </div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c006'>The “base of Heaven’s deep Organ” in Milton’s “ninefold harmony” -(<cite>Hymn on the Nativity</cite>, xiii.) implies the reverse of this.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f838'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r838'>838</a>. The difficulty appears clearly in Adam’s note on <cite>Republic</cite>, 617 b (vol. -ii. p. 452). There the ἀπλανής appears rightly as the νήτη, while Saturn, -which comes next to it, is the ὑπάτη. It is inconceivable that this should -have been the original scale. Aristotle touches upon the point (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, -Β, 10. 291 a 29 sqq.); and Simplicius sensibly observes (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, p. -476, 11), οἱ δὲ πάσας τὰς σφαίρας τὴν αὐτὴν λέγοντες κίνησιν τὴν ἀπ’ -ἀνατολῶν κινεῖσθαι καθ’ ὑπόληψιν (ought not the reading to be ὑπόλειψιν?), -ὥστε τὴν μὲν Κρονίαν σφαῖραν συναποκαθίστασθαι καθ’ ἡμέραν τῇ ἀπλανεῖ -παρ’ ὀλίγον, τὴν δὲ τοῦ Διὸς παρὰ πλέον καὶ ἐφεξῆς οὕτως, οὗτοι πολλὰς -μὲν ἄλλας ἀπορίας ἐκφεύγουσι, but their ὑπόθεσις is ἀδύνατος. This is what -led to the return to the geocentric hypothesis and the exclusion of earth -and ἀπλανὴς from the ἁρμονία. The only solution would have been to -make the earth rotate on its axis or revolve round the central fire in -twenty-four hours, leaving only precession for the ἀπλανής. As we have -seen, Boeckh attributed this to Philolaos, but without evidence. If he -had thought of it, these difficulties would not have arisen.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f839'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r839'>839</a>. <cite>Tim.</cite> 39 a 5-b 2, especially the words τὰ τάχιστα περιιόντα ὑπὸ τῶν -βραδυτέρων ἐφαίνετο καταλαμβάνοντα καταλαμβάνεσθαι (“they appear to -be overtaken, though they overtake”).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f840'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r840'>840</a>. Plato, <cite>Laws</cite>, 822 a 4 sqq. The Athenian says of the theory that he -had not heard of it in his youth nor long before (821 e 3). If so, it can -hardly have been taught by Philolaos, though it may have been by -Archytas.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f841'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r841'>841</a>. Cf. especially <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 6. 787 b 10 (R. P. 65 d). It is not quite the -same thing when he says, as in Α, 5. 985 b 23 sqq. (R. P. <i>ib.</i>), that they -perceived many likenesses in things to numbers. That refers to the -numerical analogies of Justice, Opportunity, etc.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f842'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r842'>842</a>. Aristoxenos <i>ap.</i> Stob. i. pr. 6 (p. 20), Πυθαγόρας ... πάντα τὰ -πράγματα ἀπεικάζων τοῖς ἀριθμοῖς.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f843'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r843'>843</a>. Stob. <cite>Ecl.</cite> i. p. 125, 19 (R. P. 65 d).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f844'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r844'>844</a>. Iambl. <cite>in Nicom.</cite> p. 10, 20 (R. P. 56 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f845'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r845'>845</a>. Plato, <cite>Phd.</cite> 73 a sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f846'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r846'>846</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> 74 a sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f847'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r847'>847</a>. Cf. especially the words ὃ θρυλοῦμεν ἀεί (76 d 8). The phrases αὐτὸ ὃ -ἔστιν, αὐτὸ καθ’ αὑτό, and the like are assumed to be familiar. “We” -define reality by means of question and answer, in the course of which “we” -give an account of its being (ἧς λόγον δίδομεν τοῦ εἶναι, 78 d 1, where -λόγον ... τοῦ εἶναι is equivalent to λόγον τῆς οὐσίας). When we have done -this, “we” set the seal or stamp of αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστιν upon it (75 d 2). Technical -terminology implies a school. As Diels puts it (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Elementum</cite></span>, p. 20), -it is in a school that “the simile concentrates into a metaphor, and the -metaphor condenses into a term.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f848'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r848'>848</a>. Xen. <cite>Mem.</cite> i. 2, 48.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f849'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r849'>849</a>. Plato, <cite>Soph.</cite> 248 a 4.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f850'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r850'>850</a>. See Diels, <cite>Elementum</cite>, pp. 16 sqq. Parmenides had already called the -original Pythagorean “elements” μορφαί (<a href='#sec91'>§ 91</a>), and Philistion called the -“elements” of Empedokles ἰδέαι. If the ascription of this terminology to -the Pythagoreans is correct, we may say that the Pythagorean “forms” -developed into the atoms of Leukippos and Demokritos on the one hand -(<a href='#sec174'>§ 174</a>), and into the “ideas” of Plato on the other.</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_357'>357</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER VIII <br /> THE YOUNGER ELEATICS</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Relation to predecessors.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec154'></a>154. The systems we have just been studying were -all fundamentally pluralist, and they were so because -Parmenides had shown that, if we take a corporeal -monism seriously, we must ascribe to reality a number -of predicates which are inconsistent with our experience -of a world which everywhere displays multiplicity, -motion, and change (<a href='#sec97'>§ 97</a>). The four “roots” of -Empedokles and the innumerable “seeds” of Anaxagoras -were both of them conscious attempts to solve -the problem which Parmenides had raised (§§ 106, -127). There is no evidence, indeed, that the Pythagoreans -were directly influenced by Parmenides, but it -has been shown (<a href='#sec147'>§ 147</a>) how the later form of their -system was based on the theory of Empedokles. -Now it was just this prevailing pluralism that Zeno -criticised from the Eleatic standpoint; and his arguments -were especially directed against Pythagoreanism. -Melissos, too, criticises Pythagoreanism; but he tries -to find a common ground with his adversaries by -maintaining the old Ionian thesis that reality is -infinite.</p> - -<div> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_358'>358</span> - <h3 class='c018'>I. <span class='sc'>Zeno of Elea</span></h3> -</div> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Life.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec155'></a>155. According to Apollodoros,<a id='r851' /><a href='#f851' class='c014'><sup>[851]</sup></a> Zeno flourished in -Ol. LXXIX. (464-460 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>). This date is arrived at -by making him forty years younger than his master -Parmenides. We have seen already (<a href='#sec84'>§ 84</a>) that the -meeting of Parmenides and Zeno with the young -Sokrates cannot well have occurred before 449 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, -and Plato tells us that Zeno was at that time “nearly -forty years old.”<a id='r852' /><a href='#f852' class='c014'><sup>[852]</sup></a> He must, then, have been born -about 489 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, some twenty-five years after Parmenides. -He was the son of Teleutagoras, and the statement of -Apollodoros that he had been adopted by Parmenides -is only a misunderstanding of an expression of Plato’s -<cite>Sophist</cite>.<a id='r853' /><a href='#f853' class='c014'><sup>[853]</sup></a> He was, Plato further tells us,<a id='r854' /><a href='#f854' class='c014'><sup>[854]</sup></a> tall and of -a graceful appearance.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Like Parmenides and most other early philosophers, -Zeno seems to have played a part in the politics of his -native city. Strabo ascribes to him some share of the -credit for the good government of Elea, and says that -he was a Pythagorean.<a id='r855' /><a href='#f855' class='c014'><sup>[855]</sup></a> This statement can easily be -explained. Parmenides, we have seen, was originally a -Pythagorean, and the school of Elea was no doubt -popularly regarded as a mere branch of the larger -society. We hear also that Zeno conspired against a -tyrant, whose name is differently given, and the story -<span class='pageno' id='Page_359'>359</span>of his courage under torture is often repeated, though -with varying details.<a id='r856' /><a href='#f856' class='c014'><sup>[856]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Writings.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec156'></a>156. Diogenes speaks of Zeno’s “books,” and -Souidas gives some titles which probably come from -the Alexandrian librarians through Hesychios of -Miletos.<a id='r857' /><a href='#f857' class='c014'><sup>[857]</sup></a> In the <cite>Parmenides</cite>, Plato makes Zeno say -that the work by which he is best known was written -in his youth and published against his will.<a id='r858' /><a href='#f858' class='c014'><sup>[858]</sup></a> As he -is supposed to be forty years old at the time of the -dialogue, this must mean that the book was written -before 460 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> (<a href='#sec84'>§ 84</a>), and it is very possible that he -wrote others after it. The most remarkable title which -has come down to us is that of the <cite>Interpretation of -Empedokles</cite>. It is not to be supposed, of course, that -Zeno wrote a commentary on the Poem of Empedokles; -but, as Diels has pointed out,<a id='r859' /><a href='#f859' class='c014'><sup>[859]</sup></a> it is quite credible that -he should have written an attack on it, which was -afterwards called by that name. If he wrote a work -against the “philosophers,” that must mean the -Pythagoreans, who, as we have seen, made use of -the term in a sense of their own.<a id='r860' /><a href='#f860' class='c014'><sup>[860]</sup></a> The <cite>Disputations</cite> -and the <cite>Treatise on Nature</cite> may, or may not, be the -same as the book described in Plato’s <cite>Parmenides</cite>.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is not likely that Zeno wrote dialogues, though -certain references in Aristotle have been supposed to -imply this. In the <cite>Physics</cite><a id='r861' /><a href='#f861' class='c014'><sup>[861]</sup></a> we hear of an argument -of Zeno’s, that any part of a heap of millet makes a -<span class='pageno' id='Page_360'>360</span>sound, and Simplicius illustrates this by quoting a -passage from a dialogue between Zeno and Protagoras.<a id='r862' /><a href='#f862' class='c014'><sup>[862]</sup></a> -If our chronology is right, there is nothing impossible -in the idea that the two men may have met; but it -is most unlikely that Zeno should have made himself -a personage in a dialogue of his own. That was a -later fashion. In another place Aristotle refers to a -passage where “the answerer and Zeno the questioner” -occurred,<a id='r863' /><a href='#f863' class='c014'><sup>[863]</sup></a> a reference which is most easily to be understood -in the same way. Alkidamas seems to have -written a dialogue in which Gorgias figured,<a id='r864' /><a href='#f864' class='c014'><sup>[864]</sup></a> and the -exposition of Zeno’s arguments in dialogue form must -always have been a tempting exercise. It appears -also that Aristotle made Alexamenos the first writer -of dialogues.<a id='r865' /><a href='#f865' class='c014'><sup>[865]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Plato gives us a clear idea of what Zeno’s youthful -work was like. It contained more than one “discourse,” -and these discourses were subdivided into -sections, each dealing with some one presupposition -of his adversaries.<a id='r866' /><a href='#f866' class='c014'><sup>[866]</sup></a> We owe the preservation of Zeno’s -arguments on the one and many to Simplicius.<a id='r867' /><a href='#f867' class='c014'><sup>[867]</sup></a> Those -<span class='pageno' id='Page_361'>361</span>relating to motion have been preserved by Aristotle -himself;<a id='r868' /><a href='#f868' class='c014'><sup>[868]</sup></a> but, as usual, he has restated them in his -own language.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Dialectic.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec157'></a>157. Aristotle in his <cite>Sophist</cite><a id='r869' /><a href='#f869' class='c014'><sup>[869]</sup></a> called Zeno the inventor -of dialectic, and this, no doubt, is substantially -true, though the beginnings at least of that method of -arguing were contemporary with the foundation of the -Eleatic school. Plato<a id='r870' /><a href='#f870' class='c014'><sup>[870]</sup></a> gives us a spirited account of -the style and purpose of Zeno’s book, which he puts -into his own mouth:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>In reality, this writing is a sort of reinforcement for the -argument of Parmenides against those who try to turn it into -ridicule on the ground that, if reality is one, the argument -becomes involved in many absurdities and contradictions. -This writing argues against those who uphold a Many, and -gives them back as good and better than they gave; its aim -is to show that their assumption of multiplicity will be involved -in still more absurdities than the assumption of unity, if it is -sufficiently worked out.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The method of Zeno was, in fact, to take one of -his adversaries’ fundamental postulates and deduce -from it two contradictory conclusions.<a id='r871' /><a href='#f871' class='c014'><sup>[871]</sup></a> This is what -Aristotle meant by calling him the inventor of dialectic, -which is just the art of arguing, not from true premisses, -but from premisses admitted by the other side. The -<span class='pageno' id='Page_362'>362</span>theory of Parmenides had led to conclusions which -contradicted the evidence of the senses, and Zeno’s -object was not to bring fresh proofs of the theory -itself, but simply to show that his opponents’ view -led to contradictions of a precisely similar nature.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Zeno and Pythagoreanism.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec158'></a>158. That Zeno’s dialectic was mainly directed -against the Pythagoreans is certainly suggested by -Plato’s statement, that it was addressed to the -adversaries of Parmenides, who held that things were -“a many.”<a id='r872' /><a href='#f872' class='c014'><sup>[872]</sup></a> Zeller holds, indeed, that it was merely -the popular form of the belief that things are many -that Zeno set himself to confute;<a id='r873' /><a href='#f873' class='c014'><sup>[873]</sup></a> but it is surely not -true that ordinary people believe things to be “a many” -in the sense required. Plato tells us that the premisses -of Zeno’s arguments were the beliefs of the adversaries -of Parmenides, and the postulate from which all his -contradictions are derived is the view that space, and -therefore body, is made up of a number of discrete -units, which is just the Pythagorean doctrine. Nor -is it at all probable that Anaxagoras is aimed at.<a id='r874' /><a href='#f874' class='c014'><sup>[874]</sup></a> -We know from Plato that Zeno’s book was the work -of his youth.<a id='r875' /><a href='#f875' class='c014'><sup>[875]</sup></a> Suppose even that it was written when -he was thirty, that is to say, about 459 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, Anaxagoras -had just taken up his abode at Athens at that time,<a id='r876' /><a href='#f876' class='c014'><sup>[876]</sup></a> -and it is very unlikely that Zeno had ever heard of -him. There is, on the other hand, a great deal to be -said for the view that Anaxagoras had read the work -of Zeno, and that his emphatic adhesion to the doctrine -<span class='pageno' id='Page_363'>363</span>of infinite divisibility was due to the criticism of his -younger contemporary.<a id='r877' /><a href='#f877' class='c014'><sup>[877]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>It will be noted how much clearer the historical -position of Zeno becomes if we follow Plato in assigning -him to a somewhat later date than is usual. We -have first Parmenides, then the pluralists, and then the -criticism of Zeno. This, at any rate, seems to have -been the view which Aristotle took of the historical -development.<a id='r878' /><a href='#f878' class='c014'><sup>[878]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>What is the unit?</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec159'></a>159. The polemic of Zeno is clearly directed in -the first instance against a certain view of the unit. -Eudemos, in his <cite>Physics</cite>,<a id='r879' /><a href='#f879' class='c014'><sup>[879]</sup></a> quoted from him the saying -that “if any one could tell him what the one was, he -would be able to say what things are.” The commentary -of Alexander on this, preserved by Simplicius,<a id='r880' /><a href='#f880' class='c014'><sup>[880]</sup></a> -is quite satisfactory. “As Eudemos relates,” he says, -“Zeno the disciple of Parmenides tried to show that -it was impossible that things could be a many, seeing -that there was no unit in things, whereas ‘many’ -means a number of units.” Here we have a clear reference -to the Pythagorean view that everything may be -reduced to a sum of units, which is what Zeno denied.<a id='r881' /><a href='#f881' class='c014'><sup>[881]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Fragments.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_364'>364</span><a id='sec160'></a>160. The fragments of Zeno himself also show that -this was his line of argument. I give them according -to the arrangement of Diels.</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div><a id='Ze.1'></a>(1)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>If the one had no magnitude, it would not even be.... -But, if it is, each one must have a certain magnitude and a -certain thickness, and must be at a certain distance from -another, and the same may be said of what is in front of it; -for it, too, will have magnitude, and something will be in front -of it.<a id='r882' /><a href='#f882' class='c014'><sup>[882]</sup></a> It is all the same to say this once and to say it always; -for no such part of it will be the last, nor will one thing not -be compared with another.<a id='r883' /><a href='#f883' class='c014'><sup>[883]</sup></a> So, if things are a many, they -must be both small and great, so small as not to have any -magnitude at all, and so great as to be infinite. R. P. 134.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div><a id='Ze.2'></a>(2)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>For if it were added to any other thing it would not make it -any larger; for nothing can gain in magnitude by the addition -of what has no magnitude, and thus it follows at once that -what was added was nothing.<a id='r884' /><a href='#f884' class='c014'><sup>[884]</sup></a> But if, when this is taken -away from another thing, that thing is no less; and again, if, -when it is added to another thing, that does not increase, it is -plain that what was added was nothing, and what was taken -away was nothing. R. P. 132.</p> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div><a id='Ze.3'></a>(3)</div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>If things are a many, they must be just as many as they -are, and neither more nor less. Now, if they are as many as -they are, they will be finite in number.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_365'>365</span>If things are a many, they will be infinite in number; for -there will always be other things between them, and others -again between these. And so things are infinite in number. -R. P. 133.<a id='r885' /><a href='#f885' class='c014'><sup>[885]</sup></a></p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>The unit.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec161'></a>161. If we hold that the unit has no magnitude—and -this is required by what Aristotle calls the argument -from dichotomy,<a id='r886' /><a href='#f886' class='c014'><sup>[886]</sup></a>—then everything must be infinitely -small. Nothing made up of units without -magnitude can itself have any magnitude. On the -other hand, if we insist that the units of which things -are built up are something and not nothing, we must -hold that everything is infinitely great. The line is -infinitely divisible; and, according to this view, it will -be made up of an infinite number of units, each of -which has some magnitude.</p> - -<p class='c002'>That this argument refers to points is proved by an -instructive passage from Aristotle’s <cite>Metaphysics</cite>.<a id='r887' /><a href='#f887' class='c014'><sup>[887]</sup></a> We -read there—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>If the unit is indivisible, it will, according to the proposition -of Zeno, be nothing. That which neither makes -anything larger by its addition to it, nor smaller by its subtraction -from it, is not, he says, a real thing at all; for clearly -what is real must be a magnitude. And, if it is a magnitude, -it is corporeal; for that is corporeal which is in every dimension. -The other things, <i>i.e.</i> the plane and the line, if added -in one way will make things larger, added in another they will -produce no effect; but the point and the unit cannot make -things larger in any way.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>From all this it seems impossible to draw any other -<span class='pageno' id='Page_366'>366</span>conclusion than that the “one” against which Zeno -argued was the “one” of which a number constitute a -“many,” and that is just the Pythagorean unit.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Space.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec162'></a>162. Aristotle refers to an argument which seems -to be directed against the Pythagorean doctrine of -space,<a id='r888' /><a href='#f888' class='c014'><sup>[888]</sup></a> and Simplicius quotes it in this form:<a id='r889' /><a href='#f889' class='c014'><sup>[889]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>If there is space, it will be in something; for all that is is -in something, and what is in something is in space. So space -will be in space, and this goes on <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>ad infinitum</i></span>, therefore there -is no space. R. P. 135.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>What Zeno is really arguing against here is the -attempt to distinguish space from the body that -occupies it. If we insist that body must be <em>in</em> space, -then we must go on to ask what space itself is in. -This is a “reinforcement” of the Parmenidean denial -of the void. Possibly the argument that everything -must be “in” something, or must have something -beyond it, had been used against the Parmenidean -theory of a finite sphere with nothing outside it.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Motion.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec163'></a>163. Zeno’s arguments on the subject of motion -have been preserved by Aristotle himself. The system -of Parmenides made all motion impossible, and his -successors had been driven to abandon the monistic -hypothesis in order to avoid this very consequence. -Zeno does not bring any fresh proofs of the impossibility -of motion; all he does is to show that a -pluralist theory, such as the Pythagorean, is just as -unable to explain it as was that of Parmenides. -Looked at in this way, Zeno’s arguments are no mere -<span class='pageno' id='Page_367'>367</span>quibbles, but mark a great advance in the conception -of quantity. They are as follows:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>(1) You cannot get to the end of a race-course.<a id='r890' /><a href='#f890' class='c014'><sup>[890]</sup></a> You -cannot traverse an infinite number of points in a finite time. -You must traverse the half of any given distance before you -traverse the whole, and the half of that again before you -can traverse it. This goes on <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>ad infinitum</i></span>, so that there -are an infinite number of points in any given space, and -you cannot touch an infinite number one by one in a finite -time.<a id='r891' /><a href='#f891' class='c014'><sup>[891]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>(2) Achilles will never overtake the tortoise. He must -first reach the place from which the tortoise started. By that -time the tortoise will have got some way ahead. Achilles must -then make up that, and again the tortoise will be ahead. He -is always coming nearer, but he never makes up to it.<a id='r892' /><a href='#f892' class='c014'><sup>[892]</sup></a></p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>The “hypothesis” of the second argument is the -same as that in the first, namely, that the line is a -series of points; but the reasoning is complicated by -the introduction of another moving object. The -difference, accordingly, is not a half every time, but -diminishes in a constant ratio. Again, the first -argument shows that no moving object can ever -traverse any distance at all, however fast it may move; -the second emphasises the fact that, however slowly -it moves, it will traverse an infinite distance.</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>(3) The arrow in flight is at rest. For, if everything is at -rest when it occupies a space equal to itself, and what is in -flight at any given moment always occupies a space equal to -itself, it cannot move.<a id='r893' /><a href='#f893' class='c014'><sup>[893]</sup></a></p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_368'>368</span>Here a further complication is introduced. The -moving object itself has length, and its successive -positions are not points but lines. The successive -moments in which it occupies them are still, however, -points of time. It may help to make this clear if we -remember that the flight of the arrow as represented -by the cinematograph would be exactly of this nature.</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>(4) Half the time may be equal to double the time. Let -us suppose three rows of bodies,<a id='r894' /><a href='#f894' class='c014'><sup>[894]</sup></a> one of which (A) is at rest -while the other two (B, C) are moving with equal velocity in -opposite directions (Fig. 1). By the time they are all in the -same part of the course, B will have passed twice as many of -the bodies in C as in A (Fig. 2).</p> - -<table class='table3' summary=''> -<colgroup> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -<col width='11%' /> -</colgroup> - <tr> - <td class='c011' colspan='9'><span class='sc'>Fig. 1</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c025'>A.</td> - <td class='c025'> </td> - <td class='c025'> </td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'> </td> - <td class='c009'> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c025'>B.</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'> </td> - <td class='c025'>→</td> - <td class='c025'> </td> - <td class='c009'> </td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c025'>C.</td> - <td class='c025'> </td> - <td class='c025'>←</td> - <td class='c025'> </td> - <td class='c025'> </td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c009'>●</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<table class='table4' summary=''> -<colgroup> -<col width='20%' /> -<col width='20%' /> -<col width='20%' /> -<col width='20%' /> -<col width='20%' /> -</colgroup> - <tr> - <td class='c011' colspan='5'><span class='sc'>Fig. 2</span></td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c025'>A.</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c009'>●</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c025'>B.</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c009'>●</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c025'>C.</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c025'>●</td> - <td class='c009'>●</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class='c002'>Therefore the time which it takes to pass C is twice as -long as the time it takes to pass A. But the time which B -and C take to reach the position of A is the same. Therefore -double the time is equal to the half.<a id='r895' /><a href='#f895' class='c014'><sup>[895]</sup></a></p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>According to Aristotle, the paralogism here depends -upon the assumption that an equal magnitude moving -<span class='pageno' id='Page_369'>369</span>with equal velocity must move for an equal time, -whether the magnitude with which it is equal is at -rest or in motion. That is certainly so, but we are -not to suppose that this assumption is Zeno’s own. -The fourth argument is, in fact, related to the third -just as the second is to the first. The Achilles adds -a second moving point to the single moving point of -the first argument; this argument adds a second -moving line to the single moving line of the arrow -in flight. The lines, however, are represented as a -series of units, which is just how the Pythagoreans -represented them; and it is quite true that, if lines are -a sum of discrete units, and time is similarly a series -of discrete moments, there is no other measure of -motion possible than the number of units which each -unit passes.</p> - -<p class='c002'>This argument, like the others, is intended to bring -out the absurd conclusions which follow from the -assumption that all quantity is discrete, and what -Zeno has really done is to establish the conception of -continuous quantity by a <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>reductio ad absurdum</i></span> of the -other hypothesis. If we remember that Parmenides -had asserted the one to be continuous (fr. <a href='#Pa.8'>8</a>, 25), we -shall see how accurate is the account of Zeno’s method -which Plato puts into the mouth of Sokrates.</p> - -<h3 class='c018'>II. <span class='sc'>Melissos of Samos</span></h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Life.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec164'></a>164. In his Life of Perikles, Plutarch tells us, -on the authority of Aristotle, that the philosopher -Melissos, son of Ithagenes, was the Samian general -who defeated the Athenian fleet in 441/0 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>:<a id='r896' /><a href='#f896' class='c014'><sup>[896]</sup></a> and it -<span class='pageno' id='Page_370'>370</span>was no doubt for this reason that Apollodoros fixed -his <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span> in Ol. LXXXIV. (444-41 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>).<a id='r897' /><a href='#f897' class='c014'><sup>[897]</sup></a> Beyond -this, we really know nothing about his life. He is -said to have been, like Zeno, a disciple of Parmenides;<a id='r898' /><a href='#f898' class='c014'><sup>[898]</sup></a> -but, as he was a Samian, it is possible that he was -originally a member of the Ionic school, and we shall -see that certain features of his doctrine tend to bear -out this view. On the other hand, he was certainly -convinced by the Eleatic dialectic, and renounced the -Ionic doctrine in so far as it was inconsistent with -that. We note here the effect of the increased facility -of intercourse between East and West, which was -secured by the supremacy of Athens.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Fragments.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec165'></a>165. The fragments which we have come from -Simplicius, and are given, with the exception of the -first, from the text of Diels.<a id='r899' /><a href='#f899' class='c014'><sup>[899]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'><a id='Me.1a'></a>(1<i>a</i>) If nothing is, what can be said of it as of something -real?<a id='r900' /><a href='#f900' class='c014'><sup>[900]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_371'>371</span><a id='Me.1'></a>(1) What was was ever, and ever shall be. For, if it had -come into being, it needs must have been nothing before it -came into being. Now, if it were nothing, in no wise could -anything have arisen out of nothing. R. P. 142.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='Me.2'></a>(2) Since, then, it has not come into being, and since it -is, was ever, and ever shall be, it has no beginning or end, -but is without limit. For, if it had come into being, it would -have had a beginning (for it would have begun to come into -being at some time or other) and an end (for it would have -ceased to come into being at some time or other); but, if it -neither began nor ended, and ever was and ever shall be, it -has no beginning or end; for it is not possible for anything -to be ever without all being. R. P. 143.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='Me.3'></a>(3) Further, just as it ever is, so it must ever be infinite in -magnitude. R. P. 143.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(4) But nothing which has a beginning or end is either -eternal or infinite. R. P. 143.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='Me.5'></a>(5) If it were not one, it would be bounded by something -else. R. P. 144 a.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(6) For if it is (infinite), it must be one; for if it were -two, it could not be infinite; for then they would be bounded -by one another.<a id='r901' /><a href='#f901' class='c014'><sup>[901]</sup></a> R. P. 144.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='Me.6a'></a>(6<i>a</i>) (And, since it is one, it is alike throughout; for if it -were unlike, it would be many and not one.)<a id='r902' /><a href='#f902' class='c014'><sup>[902]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='Me.7'></a>(7) So then it is eternal and infinite and one and all alike. -And it cannot perish nor become greater, nor does it suffer pain -or grief. For, if any of these things happened to it, it would -no longer be one. For if it is altered, then the real must needs -not be all alike, but what was before must pass away, and what -was not must come into being. Now, if it changed by so -much as a single hair in ten thousand years, it would all -perish in the whole of time.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_372'>372</span>Further, it is not possible either that its order should be -changed; for the order which it had before does not perish, -nor does that which was not come into being. But, since -nothing is either added to it or passes away or is altered, how -can any real thing have had its order changed? For if anything -became different, that would amount to a change in its order.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Nor does it suffer pain; for a thing in pain could not all -be. For a thing in pain could not be ever, nor has it the -same power as what is whole. Nor would it be alike, if it -were in pain; for it is only from the addition or subtraction of -something that it could feel pain, and then it would no longer -be alike. Nor could what is whole feel pain; for then what -was whole and what was real would pass away, and what was -not would come into being. And the same argument applies -to grief as to pain.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Nor is anything empty. For what is empty is nothing. -What is nothing cannot be.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Nor does it move; for it has nowhere to betake itself to, but -is full. For if there were aught empty, it would betake itself to -the empty. But, since there is naught empty, it has nowhere -to betake itself to.</p> - -<p class='c002'>And it cannot be dense and rare; for it is not possible for -what is rare to be as full as what is dense, but what is rare is -at once emptier than what is dense.</p> - -<p class='c002'>This is the way in which we must distinguish between what -is full and what is not full. If a thing has room for anything -else, and takes it in, it is not full; but if it has no room for -anything and does not take it in, it is full.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Now, it must needs be full if there is naught empty, and if -it is full, it does not move. R. P. 145.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='Me.8'></a>(8) This argument, then, is the greatest proof that it is one -alone; but the following are proofs of it also. If there were a -many, these would have to be of the same kind as I say that -the one is. For if there is earth and water, and air and iron, -and gold and fire, and if one thing is living and another dead, -and if things are black and white and all that men say they -really are,—if that is so, and if we see and hear aright, each -one of these must be such as we first decided, and they cannot -be changed or altered, but each must be just as it is. But, as -<span class='pageno' id='Page_373'>373</span>it is, we say that we see and hear and understand aright, and -yet we believe that what is warm becomes cold, and what is -cold warm; that what is hard turns soft, and what is soft -hard; that what is living dies, and that things are born from -what lives not; and that all those things are changed, and that -what they were and what they are now are in no way alike. We -think that iron, which is hard, is rubbed away by contact with -the finger;<a id='r903' /><a href='#f903' class='c014'><sup>[903]</sup></a> and so with gold and stone and everything which we -fancy to be strong, and that earth and stone are made out of -water; so that it turns out that we neither see nor know -realities. Now these things do not agree with one another. -We said that there were many things that were eternal and -had forms and strength of their own, and yet we fancy that -they all suffer alteration, and that they change from what we -see each time. It is clear, then, that we did not see aright -after all, nor are we right in believing that all these things are -many. They would not change if they were real, but each -thing would be just what we believed it to be; for nothing -is stronger than true reality. But if it has changed, what -was has passed away, and what was not is come into being. -So then, if there were many things, they would have to be -just of the same nature as the one. R. P. 147.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='Me.9'></a>(9) Now, if it were to exist, it must needs be one; but -if it is one, it cannot have body; for, if it had body it would -have parts, and would no longer be one. R. P. 146.<a id='r904' /><a href='#f904' class='c014'><sup>[904]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>(10) If what is real is divided, it moves; but if it moves, -it cannot be. R. P. 144 a.<a id='r905' /><a href='#f905' class='c014'><sup>[905]</sup></a></p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>Theory of reality.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec166'></a>166. It has been pointed out that Melissos was -perhaps not originally a member of the Eleatic school; -but he certainly adopted all the views of Parmenides -as to the true nature of reality with one remarkable -exception. He appears to have opened his treatise with -<span class='pageno' id='Page_374'>374</span>a reassertion of the Parmenidean “Nothing is not” (fr. -<a href='#Me.1a'>1 <i>a</i></a>), and the arguments by which he supported this -view are those with which we are already familiar -(fr. <a href='#Me.1'>1</a>). Reality, as with Parmenides, is eternal, an -attribute which Melissos expressed in a way of his own. -He argued that since everything that has come into -being has a beginning and an end, everything that has -not come into being has no beginning or end. Aristotle -is very severe upon him for this simple conversion -of a universal affirmative proposition;<a id='r906' /><a href='#f906' class='c014'><sup>[906]</sup></a> but, of course, -his belief was not founded on that. His whole -conception of reality made it necessary for him to -regard it as eternal.<a id='r907' /><a href='#f907' class='c014'><sup>[907]</sup></a> It would be a more serious -matter if Aristotle were right in believing, as he -seems to have done,<a id='r908' /><a href='#f908' class='c014'><sup>[908]</sup></a> that Melissos inferred that -what is must be infinite in space, because it had -neither beginning nor end in time. This, however, -seems quite incredible. As we have the fragment -which Aristotle interprets in this way (fr. <a href='#Me.2'>2</a>), we are -quite entitled to understand it for ourselves, and I -cannot see anything to justify Aristotle’s assumption -<span class='pageno' id='Page_375'>375</span>that the expression “without limit” means without -limit in space.<a id='r909' /><a href='#f909' class='c014'><sup>[909]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Reality spatially infinite.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec167'></a>167. Melissos did indeed differ from Parmenides in -holding that reality was spatially as well as temporally -infinite; but he gave an excellent reason for this belief, -and had no need to support it by the extraordinary -argument just alluded to. What he said was that, -if it were limited, it would be limited by empty space. -This we know from Aristotle himself,<a id='r910' /><a href='#f910' class='c014'><sup>[910]</sup></a> and it marks a -real advance upon Parmenides. He had thought it -possible to regard reality as a finite sphere, but it -would have been difficult for him to work out this view -in detail. He would have had to say there was nothing -outside the sphere; but no one knew better than he -that there is no such thing as nothing. Melissos saw -that you cannot imagine a finite sphere without -regarding it as surrounded by an infinite empty space;<a id='r911' /><a href='#f911' class='c014'><sup>[911]</sup></a> -and as, in common with the rest of the school, he -denied the void (fr. <a href='#Me.7'>7</a>), he was forced to say reality was -spatially infinite (fr. <a href='#Me.3'>3</a>). It is possible that he was -influenced in this by his association with the Ionic -school.</p> - -<p class='c002'>From the infinity of reality, it follows that it must -be one; for, if it were not one, it would be bounded by -something else (fr. <a href='#Me.5'>5</a>). And, being one, it must be -homogeneous throughout (fr. <a href='#Me.6a'>6<i>a</i></a>), for that is what we -<span class='pageno' id='Page_376'>376</span>mean by one. Reality, then, is a single, homogeneous, -corporeal <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>plenum</i></span>, stretching out to infinity in space, and -going backwards and forwards to infinity in time.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Opposition to Ionians.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec168'></a>168. Eleaticism was always critical, and we are not -without indications of the attitude taken up by Melissos -towards contemporary systems. The flaw which he -found in the Ionian theories was that they all assumed -some want of homogeneity in the One, which is a real -inconsistency. Further, they all allowed the possibility -of change; but, if all things are one, change must be a -form of coming into being and passing away. If you -admit that a thing can change, you cannot maintain -that it is eternal. Nor can the arrangement of the -parts of reality alter, as Anaximander, for instance, -had held; any such change necessarily involves a -coming into being and passing away.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The next point made by Melissos is somewhat -peculiar. Reality, he says, cannot feel sorrow or pain; -for that is always due to the addition or subtraction of -something, which is impossible. It is not easy to be -sure what this refers to. Perhaps it is to the theory of -Herakleitos with its Want and Surfeit, perhaps to something -of which no record has been preserved.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Motion in general<a id='r912' /><a href='#f912' class='c014'><sup>[912]</sup></a> and rarefaction and condensation -in particular are impossible; for both imply the existence -of empty space. Divisibility is excluded for the -same reason. These are the same arguments as -Parmenides employed.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Opposition to Pythagoreans.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_377'>377</span><a id='sec169'></a>169. In nearly all accounts of the system of -Melissos, we find it stated that he denied the -corporeality of what is real,—an opinion which is -supported by a reference to fr. <a href='#Me.9'>9</a>, which is certainly -quoted by Simplicius to prove this very point.<a id='r913' /><a href='#f913' class='c014'><sup>[913]</sup></a> If, -however, our general view as to the character of early -Greek Philosophy is correct, the statement must seem -incredible. And it will seem even more surprising -when we find that in the <cite>Metaphysics</cite> Aristotle says -that, while the unity of Parmenides seemed to be ideal, -that of Melissos was material.<a id='r914' /><a href='#f914' class='c014'><sup>[914]</sup></a> Now the fragment, as -it stands in the MSS. of Simplicius,<a id='r915' /><a href='#f915' class='c014'><sup>[915]</sup></a> puts a purely -hypothetical case, and would most naturally be understood -as a disproof of the existence of something on -the ground that, if it existed, it would have to be both -corporeal and one. This cannot refer to the Eleatic -One, in which Melissos himself believed; and, as the -argument is almost verbally the same as one of -Zeno’s,<a id='r916' /><a href='#f916' class='c014'><sup>[916]</sup></a> it is natural to suppose that it also was -directed against the Pythagorean assumption of ultimate -units. The only possible objection is that Simplicius, -who twice quotes the fragment, certainly took -it in the sense usually given to it.<a id='r917' /><a href='#f917' class='c014'><sup>[917]</sup></a> But it was very -natural for him to make this mistake. “The One” -was an expression that had two senses in the middle -of the fifth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>; it meant either the whole of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_378'>378</span>reality or the point as a spatial unit. To maintain it -in the first sense, the Eleatics were obliged to disprove -it in the second; and so it sometimes seemed that they -were speaking of their own “One” when they really -meant the other. We have seen that the very same -difficulty was felt about Zeno’s denial of the “one.”<a id='r918' /><a href='#f918' class='c014'><sup>[918]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Opposition to Anaxagoras.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec170'></a>170. The most remarkable fragment of Melissos is, -perhaps, the last (fr. <a href='#Me.8'>8</a>). It seems to be directed -against Anaxagoras; at least the language used seems -more applicable to him than to any one else. Anaxagoras -had admitted (<a href='#sec137'>§ 137</a>, <i>fin.</i>) that, so far as our perceptions -go, they do not entirely agree with his theory, -though he held this was due solely to their weakness. -Melissos, taking advantage of this admission, urges -that, if we give up the senses as the ultimate test of -reality, we are not entitled to reject the Eleatic theory. -With wonderful penetration he points out that if we -are to say, with Anaxagoras, that things are a many, -we are bound also to say that each one of them is such -as the Eleatics declared the One to be. In other -words, the only consistent pluralism is the atomic -theory.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Melissos has long been unduly depreciated owing to -the criticisms of Aristotle; but these, we have seen, are -based mainly on a somewhat pedantic objection to the -false conversion in the early part of the argument. -Melissos knew nothing about the rules of conversion; -and if he had, he could easily have made his reasoning -formally correct without modifying his system. His -greatness consisted in this, that not only was he the -real systematiser of Eleaticism, but he was also able to -see, before the pluralists saw it themselves, the only -<span class='pageno' id='Page_379'>379</span>way in which the theory that things are a many could -be consistently worked out.<a id='r919' /><a href='#f919' class='c014'><sup>[919]</sup></a> It is significant that -Polybos, the nephew of Hippokrates, reproaches those -“sophists” who taught there was only one primary -substance with “putting the doctrine of Melissos on -its feet.”<a id='r920' /><a href='#f920' class='c014'><sup>[920]</sup></a></p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f851'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r851'>851</a>. Diog. ix. 29 (R. P. 130 a). Apollodoros is not expressly referred to -for Zeno’s date; but, as he is quoted for his father’s name (ix. 25; R. P. -130), there can be no doubt that he is also the source of the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f852'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r852'>852</a>. Plato, <cite>Parm.</cite> 127 b (R. P. 111 d). The visit of Zeno to Athens is -confirmed by Plut. <cite>Per.</cite> 4 (R. P. 130 e), where we are told that Perikles -“heard” him as well as Anaxagoras. It is also alluded to in <cite>Alc.</cite> I. -119 a, where we are told that Pythodoros, son of Isolochos, and Kallias, -son of Kalliades, each paid him 100 minae for instruction.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f853'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r853'>853</a>. Plato, <cite>Soph.</cite> 241 d (R. P. 130 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f854'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r854'>854</a>. Plato, <cite>Parm.</cite>, <i>loc. cit.</i></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f855'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r855'>855</a>. Strabo, vi. p. 252 (R. P. 111 c).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f856'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r856'>856</a>. Diog. ix. 26, 27, and the other passages referred to in R. P. 130 c.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f857'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r857'>857</a>. Diog. ix. 26 (R. P. 130); Suidas <i>s.v.</i> (R. P. 130 d).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f858'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r858'>858</a>. Plato, <cite>Parm.</cite> 128 d 6 (R. P. 130 d).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f859'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r859'>859</a>. <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Berl. Sitzb.</cite></span>, 1884, p. 359.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f860'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r860'>860</a>. See above, p. 321, <a href='#f740'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 740</ins></a>. It hardly seems likely that a later writer -would make Zeno argue πρὸς τοὺς φιλοσόφους, and the title given to the -book at Alexandria must be based on something contained in it.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f861'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r861'>861</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Η, 5. 250 a 20 (R. P. 131 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f862'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r862'>862</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 1108, 18 (R. P. 131). If this is what Aristotle refers -to, it is hardly safe to attribute the κεγχρίτης λόγος to Zeno himself. -It is worth noting that the existence of this dialogue is another indication -of Zeno’s visit to Athens at an age when he could converse with -Protagoras, which agrees very well with Plato’s representation of the matter.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f863'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r863'>863</a>. Arist. <cite>Soph. El.</cite> 170 b 22 (R. P. 130 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f864'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r864'>864</a>. Chap. V. p. 231, <a href='#f512'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 512</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f865'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r865'>865</a>. Diog. iii. 48. It is certain that the authority whom Diogenes follows -here took the statement of Aristotle to mean that Alexamenos was the first -writer of prose dialogues.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f866'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r866'>866</a>. Plato, <cite>Parm.</cite> 127 d. Plato speaks of the first ὑπόθεσις of the first -λόγος, which shows that the book was really divided into separate sections. -Proclus (<i>in loc.</i>) says there were forty of these λόγοι altogether.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f867'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r867'>867</a>. Simplicius expressly says in one place (p. 140, 30; R. P. 133) that -he is quoting κατὰ λέξιν. I now see no reason to doubt this, as the -Academy would certainly have a copy of the work. If so, the fact that -the fragments are not written in Ionic is another confirmation of Zeno’s -residence at Athens.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f868'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r868'>868</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Ζ, 9. 239 b 9 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f869'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r869'>869</a>. Cf. Diog. ix. 25 (R. P. 130).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f870'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r870'>870</a>. Plato, <cite>Parm.</cite> 128 c (R. P. 130 d).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f871'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r871'>871</a>. The technical terms used in Plato’s <cite>Parmenides</cite> seem to be as old as -Zeno himself. The ὑπόθεσις is the provisional assumption of the truth of -a certain statement, and takes the form εἰ πολλά ἐστι or the like. The -word does not mean the assumption of something as a foundation, but the -setting before one’s self of a statement as a problem to be solved (Ionic -ὑποθέσθαι, Attic προθέσθαι). If the conclusions which necessarily follow -from the ὑπόθεσις (τὰ συμβαίνοντα) are impossible, the ὑπόθεσις is -“destroyed” (cf. Plato, <cite>Rep.</cite> 533 c 8, τὰς ὑποθέσεις ἀναιροῦσα). The -author of the Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰατρικῆς (c 1) knows the word ὑπόθεσις in a -similar sense.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f872'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r872'>872</a>. The view that Zeno’s arguments were directed against Pythagoreanism -has been maintained in recent times by Tannery (<span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><cite>Science hellène</cite></span>, pp. -249 sqq.), and Bäumker (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Das Problem der Materie</cite></span>, pp. 60 sqq.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f873'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r873'>873</a>. Zeller, p. 589 (Eng. trans. p. 612).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f874'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r874'>874</a>. This is the view of Stallbaum in his edition of the <cite>Parmenides</cite> -(pp. 25 sqq.).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f875'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r875'>875</a>. <cite>Parm.</cite>, <i>loc. cit.</i></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f876'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r876'>876</a>. Chap. VI. <a href='#sec120'>§ 120</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f877'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r877'>877</a>. Cf. for instance Anaxagoras, fr. <a href='#An.3'>3</a>, with Zeno, fr. <a href='#Ze.2'>2</a>; and Anaxagoras, -fr. <a href='#An.5'>5</a>, with Zeno, fr. <a href='#Ze.3'>3</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f878'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r878'>878</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Α, 3. 187 a 1 (R. P. 134 b). See below, <a href='#sec173'>§ 173</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f879'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r879'>879</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 138, 32 (R. P. 134 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f880'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r880'>880</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 99, 13, ὡς γὰρ ἰστορεῖ, φησίν (Ἀλέξανδρος), Εὔδημος, -Ζήνων ὁ Παρμενίδου γνώριμος ἐπειρᾶτο δεικνύναι ὅτι μὴ οἷόν τε τὰ ὄντα -πολλὰ εἶναι τῷ μηδὲν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς οὖσιν ἕν, τὰ δὲ πολλὰ πλῆθος εἶναι -ἐνάδων. This is the meaning of the statement that Zeno ἀνῄρει τὸ ἕν, -which is not Alexander’s (as implied in R. P. 134 a), but goes back to no -less an authority than Eudemos. It is perfectly correct when read in -connexion with the words τὴν γὰρ στιγμὴν ὡς τὸ ἓν λέγει (Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> -p. 99, 11).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f881'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r881'>881</a>. It is quite in order that Mr. Bertrand Russell, from the standpoint of -pluralism, should accept Zeno’s arguments as “immeasurably subtle and -profound” (<cite>Principles of Mathematics</cite>, p. 347). We know from Plato, -however, that Zeno meant them as a <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>reductio ad absurdum</i></span> of pluralism.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f882'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r882'>882</a>. I formerly rendered “the same may be said of what surpasses it in -smallness; for it too will have magnitude, and something will surpass it in -smallness.” This is Tannery’s rendering, but I now agree with Diels in -thinking that ἀπέχειν refers to μέγεθος and προεχειν to πάχος. Zeno is -showing that the Pythagorean point has really three dimensions.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f883'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r883'>883</a>. Reading, with Diels and the MSS., οὔτε ἕτερον πρὸς ἕτερον οὐκ ἔσται. -Gomperz’s conjecture (adopted in R. P.) seems to me arbitrary.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f884'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r884'>884</a>. Zeller marks a lacuna here. Zeno must certainly have shown that -the subtraction of a point does not make a thing less; but he may have -done so before the beginning of our present fragment.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f885'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r885'>885</a>. This is what Aristotle calls “the argument from dichotomy” (<cite>Phys.</cite> -Α, 3. 187 a 1; R. P. 134 b). If a line is made up of points, we ought to -be able to answer the question, “How many points are there in a given -line?” On the other hand, you can always divide a line or any part of it -into two halves; so that, if a line is made up of points, there will always -be more of them than any number you assign.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f886'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r886'>886</a>. See last note.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f887'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r887'>887</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Β, 4. 1001 b 7.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f888'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r888'>888</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Δ, 1. 209 a 23; 3. 210 b 22 (R. P. 135 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f889'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r889'>889</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 562, 3 (R. P. 135). The version of Eudemos is -given in Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 563, 26, ἀξιοῖ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ ὂν ποῦ εἷναι· εἱ δὲ ὁ -τόπος τῶν ὄντων, ποῦ ἂν εἴη· οὐκοῦν ἐν ἄλλῳ τόπῳ κἀκεῖνος δὴ ἐν ἄλλῳ -καὶ οὕτως εἰς τὸ πρόσω.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f890'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r890'>890</a>. Arist. <cite>Top.</cite> Θ, 8. 160 b 8, Ζήνωνος (λόγος), ὅτι οὐκ ἐνδέχεται -κινεῖσθαι οὐδὲ τὸ στάδιον διελθεῖν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f891'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r891'>891</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Ζ, 9. 239 b 11 (R. P. 136). Cf. Ζ, 2. 233 a 11; a 21 -(R. P. 136 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f892'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r892'>892</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Ζ, 9. 239 b 14 (R. P. 137).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f893'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r893'>893</a>. <cite>Phys.</cite> Ζ, 9. 239 b 30 (R. P. 138); <i>ib.</i> 239 b 5 (R. P. 138 a). The -latter passage is corrupt, though the meaning is plain. I have translated -Zeller’s version of it εἰ γάρ, φησίν, ἠρεμεῖ πᾶν ὅταν ᾖ κατὰ τὸ ἴσον, ἔστι -δ’ ἀεὶ τὸ φερόμενον ἐν τῷ νῦν κατὰ τὸ ἴσον, ἀκίνητον, κ.τ.λ. Of course -ἀεί means “at any time,” not “always,” and κατὰ τὸ ἴσον is, literally, “on -a level with a space equal (to itself).” For other readings, see Zeller, -p. 598, n. 3; and Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vors.</cite></span> p. 131, 44.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f894'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r894'>894</a>. The word is ὄγκοι; cf. Chap. VII. p. 338, <a href='#f794'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 794</ins></a>. The name is very -appropriate for the Pythagorean units, which Zeno had shown to have -length, breadth, and thickness (fr. <a href='#Ze.1'>1</a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f895'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r895'>895</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Ζ, 9. 239 b 33 (R. P. 139). I have had to express the -argument in my own way, as it is not fully given by any of the authorities. -The figure is practically Alexander’s (Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 1016, 14), except -that he represents the ὄγκοι by letters instead of dots. The conclusion is -plainly stated by Aristotle (<i>loc. cit.</i>), συμβαίνειν οἴεται ἴσον εἶναι χρόνον -τῷ διπλασίῳ τὸν ἥμισυν, and, however we explain the reasoning, it must -be so represented as to lead to this conclusion.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f896'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r896'>896</a>. Plut. <cite>Per.</cite> 26 (R. P. 141 b), from Aristotle’s Σαμίων πολιτεία.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f897'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r897'>897</a>. Diog. ix. 24 (R. P. 141). It is possible, of course, that Apollodoros -meant the first and not the fourth year of the Olympiad. That is his -usual era, the foundation of Thourioi. But, on the whole, it is more -likely that he meant the fourth; for the date of the ναυαρχία would be -given with precision. See Jacoby, p. 270.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f898'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r898'>898</a>. Diog. ix. 24 (R. P. 141).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f899'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r899'>899</a>. It is no longer necessary to discuss the passages which used to appear -as frs. 1-5 of Melissos, as it has been proved by A. Pabst that they are -merely a paraphrase of the genuine fragments (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>De Melissi Samii fragmentis</cite></span>, -Bonn, 1889). Almost simultaneously I had independently come to the -same conclusion (see the first edition, § 138). Zeller and Diels have both -accepted Pabst’s demonstration, and the supposed fragments have been -relegated to the notes in the last edition of R. P. I still believe, however, -that the fragment which I have numbered 1<i>a</i> is genuine. See next note.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f900'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r900'>900</a>. These words come from the beginning of the paraphrase which was -so long mistaken for the actual words of Melissos (Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 103, -18; R. P. 142 a), and Diels has accordingly removed them along with -the rest. I believe them to be genuine because Simplicius, who had -access to the complete work, introduces them by the words ἄρχεται τοῦ -συγγράμματος οὕτως, and because they are thoroughly Eleatic in character. -It is quite natural that the first words of the book should be prefixed to -the paraphrase.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f901'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r901'>901</a>. This fragment is quoted by Simpl. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, p. 557, 16 (R. P. 144). -The insertion of the word “infinite” is justified by the paraphrase (R. P. -144 a) and by <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>M.X.G.</cite></span> 974 a 11, πᾶν δὲ ἄπειρον ὂν <ἓν> εἶναι· εἰ γὰρ -δύο ἢ πλείω εἴη, πέρατ’ ἂν εἶναι ταῦτα πρὸς ἄλληλα.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f902'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r902'>902</a>. I have ventured to insert this, though the actual words are nowhere -quoted, and it is not in Diels. It is represented in the paraphrase (R. P. -145 a) and in <cite>M.X.G.</cite> 974 a 13 (R. P. 144 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f903'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r903'>903</a>. Reading ὁμουρέων with Bergk. Diels keeps the MS. ὀμοῦ ῥέων; Zeller -(p. 613, n. 1) conjectures ὑπ’ ἰοῦ ῥέων.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f904'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r904'>904</a>. I read εἰ μὲν οὖν εἴη with E F for the εἰ μὲν ὂν εἴη of D. The ἐὸν -which still stands in R. P. is a piece of local colour due to the editors. -Diels also now reads οὖν (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vors.</cite></span> p. 149, 2).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f905'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r905'>905</a>. Diels now reads ἀλλὰ with E for the ἅμα of F, and attaches the word -to the next sentence.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f906'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r906'>906</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Α, 3. 186 a 7 (R. P. 143 a). Aristotle finds two flaws in -the Eleatic reasoning: (1) ψευδῆ λαμβάνουσιν; (2) ἀσυλλόγιστοί εἰσιν αὐτῶν -οἱ λόγοι. This is the first of these flaws. It is also mentioned in <cite>Soph. El.</cite> -168 b 35 (R. P. <i>ib.</i>). So Eudemos <i>ap.</i> Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 105, 24, οὐ γὰρ, -εἰ τὸ γενόμενον ἀρχὴν ἔχει, τὸ μὴ γενόμενον ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἔχει, μᾶλλον δὲ -τὸ μὴ ἔχον ἀρχὴν οὐκ ἐγένετο.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f907'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r907'>907</a>. The real reason is given in the paraphrase in Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 103, 21 -(R. P. 142 a), συγχωρεῖται γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο ὑπὸ τῶν φυσικῶν, though of -course Melissos himself would not have put it in that way. He regarded -himself as a φυσικός like the rest; but, from the time of Aristotle, it was -a commonplace that the Eleatics were not φυσικοί, since they denied -motion.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f908'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r908'>908</a>. This has been denied by Offner, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Zur Beurtheilung des Melissos”</span> -(<cite>Arch.</cite> iv. pp. 12 sqq.), but I now think he goes too far. Cf. especially -<cite>Top.</cite> ix. 6, ὡς ἄμφω ταὐτὰ ὄντα τῷ ἀρχὴν ἔχειν, τό τε γεγονὸς καὶ τὸ -πεπερασμένον. The same point is made in <cite>Soph. El.</cite> 167 b 13 and -181 a 27.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f909'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r909'>909</a>. The words ἀλλ’ ἄπειρόν ἐστι mean simply “but it is without limit,” -and this is simply a repetition of the statement that it has no beginning or -end. The nature of the limit can only be determined by the context, and -accordingly, when Melissos does introduce the subject of spatial infinity, -he is careful to say τὸ μέγεθος ἄπειρον (fr. <a href='#Me.3'>3</a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f910'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r910'>910</a>. Arist. <cite>Gen. Corr.</cite> i. 8. 325 a 14, ἓν καὶ ἀκίνητον τὸ πᾶν εἶναί φασι καὶ -ἄπειρον ἔνιοι· τὸ γὰρ πέρας περαίνειν ἂν πρὸς τὸ κενόν. That this refers -to Melissos has been proved by Zeller (p. 612, n. 2).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f911'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r911'>911</a>. Note the disagreement with Zeno (<a href='#sec162'>§ 162</a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f912'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r912'>912</a>. The view of Bäumker that Melissos admitted ἀντιπερίστασις or motion -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>in pleno</i></span> (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Jahrb. f. kl. Phil.</cite></span>, 1886, p. 541; <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Das Problem der Materie</cite></span>, p. 59) -depends upon some words of Simplicius (<cite>Phys.</cite> p. 104, 13), οὐχ ὅτι μὴ -δυνατὸν διὰ πλήρους κινεῖσθαι, ὡς ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων λέγομεν κ.τ.λ. These -words were formerly turned into Ionic and passed off as a fragment of -Melissos. They are, however, part of Simplicius’s own argument against -Alexander, and have nothing to do with Melissos at all.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f913'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r913'>913</a>. See, however, Bäumker, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Das Problem der Materie</cite></span>, pp. 57 sqq., who -remarks that ἐόν (or ὄν) in fr. 9 must be the predicate, as it has no article. -In his fifth edition (p. 611, n. 2) Zeller has adopted the view here taken. -He rightly observes that the hypothetical form εἰ μὲν ὂν εἴη speaks for it, -and that the subject to εἴη must be ἕκαστον τῶν πολλῶν, as with Zeno.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f914'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r914'>914</a>. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 5. 986 b 18 (R. P. 101).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f915'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r915'>915</a>. Brandis changed the εἴη to ἔστι, but there is no warrant for this.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f916'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r916'>916</a>. Cf. Zeno, fr. <a href='#Ze.1'>1</a>, especially the words εἰ δὲ ἔστιν, ἀνάγκη ἕκαστον -μέγεθός τι ἔχειν καὶ πάχος.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f917'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r917'>917</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> pp. 87, 6, and 110, 1.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f918'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r918'>918</a>. See above, <a href='#sec159'>§ 159</a>, p. 363, <a href='#f880'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 880</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f919'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r919'>919</a>. Bäumker, <i>op. cit.</i> p. 58, n. 3: “That Melissos was a weakling is -a <span lang="fr" xml:lang="fr"><i>fable convenue</i></span> that people repeat after Aristotle, who was unable to -appreciate the Eleatics in general, and in particular misunderstood Melissos -not inconsiderably.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f920'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r920'>920</a>. Περὶ φύσιος ἀνθρώπου, c. 1, ἀλλ’ ἔμοιγε δοκέουσιν οἱ τοιοῦτοι ἄνθρωποι -αὐτοὶ ἑωυτοὺς καταβάλλειν ἐν τοῖσιν ὀνόμασι τῶν λόγων αὐτῶν ὑπὸ ἀσυνεσίης, -τὸν δὲ Μελίσσου λόγον ὀρθοῦν. The metaphors are taken from -wrestling, and were current at this date (cf. the καταβάλλοντες of -Protagoras). Plato implies a more generous appreciation of Melissos than -Aristotle’s. In <cite>Theaet.</cite> 180 e 2, he refers to the Eleatics as Μέλισσοί τε -καὶ Παρμενίδαι, and in 183 e 4 he almost apologises for giving the pre-eminence -to Parmenides.</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_380'>380</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER IX <br /> LEUKIPPOS OF MILETOS</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Leukippos and Demokritos.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec171'></a>171. We have seen (§§ 31, 122) that the school of -Miletos did not come to an end with Anaximenes, and -it is a striking fact that the man who gave the most -complete answer to the question first asked by Thales -was a Milesian.<a id='r921' /><a href='#f921' class='c014'><sup>[921]</sup></a> It is true that the very existence of -Leukippos has been called in question. Epicurus said -there never was such a philosopher, and the same thing -has been maintained in quite recent times.<a id='r922' /><a href='#f922' class='c014'><sup>[922]</sup></a> On the -other hand, Aristotle and Theophrastos certainly made -him the originator of the atomic theory, and it still -seems possible to show they were right. Incidentally -<span class='pageno' id='Page_381'>381</span>we shall see how later writers came to ignore him, and -thus made possible the sally of Epicurus.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The question is intimately bound up with that of -the date of Demokritos, who said that he was a young -man in the old age of Anaxagoras, a statement which -makes it unlikely that he founded his school at Abdera -before 420 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, the date given by Apollodoros for his -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span>.<a id='r923' /><a href='#f923' class='c014'><sup>[923]</sup></a> Now Theophrastos stated that Diogenes of -Apollonia borrowed some of his views from Anaxagoras -and some from Leukippos,<a id='r924' /><a href='#f924' class='c014'><sup>[924]</sup></a> which can only mean that -there were traces of the atomic theory in his work. -Further, Apollonios is parodied in the <cite>Clouds</cite> of -Aristophanes, which was produced in 423 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, from -which it follows that the work of Leukippos must have -become known considerably before that date. What -that work was, Theophrastos also tells us. It was the -<cite>Great Diakosmos</cite> usually attributed to Demokritos.<a id='r925' /><a href='#f925' class='c014'><sup>[925]</sup></a> -This means further that what were known later as the -works of Demokritos were really the writings of the -school of Abdera, and included, as was natural, the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_382'>382</span>works of its founder. They formed, in fact, a <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>corpus</i></span> -comparable to that which has come down to us under -the name of Hippokrates, and it was no more possible -to distinguish the authors of the different treatises in -the one case than it is in the other. We need not -hesitate, for all that, to believe that Aristotle and -Theophrastos were better informed on this point than -later writers, who naturally regarded the whole mass as -equally the work of Demokritos.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Theophrastos found Leukippos described as an -Eleate in some of his authorities, and, if we may trust -analogy, that means he had settled at Elea.<a id='r926' /><a href='#f926' class='c014'><sup>[926]</sup></a> It is -possible that his emigration to the west was connected -with the revolution at Miletos in 450-49 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span><a id='r927' /><a href='#f927' class='c014'><sup>[927]</sup></a> In -any case, Theophrastos says distinctly that he had -been a member of the school of Parmenides, and the -way in which he speaks suggests that the founder of -that school was still at its head.<a id='r928' /><a href='#f928' class='c014'><sup>[928]</sup></a> He may very -well have been so, if we accept Plato’s chronology.<a id='r929' /><a href='#f929' class='c014'><sup>[929]</sup></a> -Theophrastos also appears to have said that Leukippos -“heard” Zeno, which is very credible. We shall see, -at any rate, that the influence of Zeno on his thinking -is unmistakable.<a id='r930' /><a href='#f930' class='c014'><sup>[930]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_383'>383</span>The relations of Leukippos to Empedokles and -Anaxagoras are more difficult to determine. It has -become part of the case for the historical reality of -Leukippos that there are traces of atomism in the -systems of these men; but the case is strong enough -without that assumption. Besides, it lands us in -serious difficulties, not the least of which is that it -would require us to regard Empedokles and Anaxagoras -as mere eclectics like Diogenes of Apollonia.<a id='r931' /><a href='#f931' class='c014'><sup>[931]</sup></a> The -strongest argument for the view that Leukippos -influenced Empedokles is that drawn from the doctrine -of “pores”; but we have seen that this originated -with Alkmaion, and it is therefore more probable that -Leukippos derived it from Empedokles.<a id='r932' /><a href='#f932' class='c014'><sup>[932]</sup></a> We have -seen too that Zeno probably wrote against Empedokles, -and we know that he influenced Leukippos.<a id='r933' /><a href='#f933' class='c014'><sup>[933]</sup></a> Nor, is -it at all probable that Anaxagoras knew anything of -the theory of Leukippos. It is true that he denied -the existence of the void; but it does not follow that -any one had already maintained that doctrine in the -atomist sense. The early Pythagoreans had spoken -of a void too, though they had confused it with -atmospheric air; and the experiments of Anaxagoras -<span class='pageno' id='Page_384'>384</span>with the <em>klepsydra</em> and the inflated skins would only -have had any point if they were directed against the -Pythagorean theory.<a id='r934' /><a href='#f934' class='c014'><sup>[934]</sup></a> If he had really wished to -refute Leukippos, he would have had to use arguments -of a very different kind.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Theophrastos on the atomic theory.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec172'></a>172. Theophrastos wrote of Leukippos as follows -in the First Book of his <cite>Opinions</cite>:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Leukippos of Elea or Miletos (for both accounts are given -of him) had associated with Parmenides in philosophy. He -did not, however, follow the same path in his explanation of -things as Parmenides and Xenophanes did, but, as is believed, -the very opposite (R. P. 185). They made the All one, -immovable, uncreated, and finite, and did not even permit us -to search for <em>what is not</em>; he assumed innumerable and ever-moving -elements, namely, the atoms. And he made their -forms infinite in number, since there was no reason why they -should be of one kind rather than another, and because he -saw that there was unceasing becoming and change in things. -He held, further, that <em>what is</em> is no more real than <em>what is -not</em>, and that both are alike causes of the things that come -into being; for he laid down that the substance of the atoms -was compact and full, and he called them <em>what is</em>, while they -moved in the void which he called <em>what is not</em>, but affirmed -to be just as real as <em>what is</em>. R. P. 194.</p> - -</div> - -<div class='sidenote'>Leukippos and the Eleatics.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec173'></a>173. It will be observed that Theophrastos, while -noting the affiliation of Leukippos to the Eleatic school, -points out that his theory is, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>prima facie</i></span>,<a id='r935' /><a href='#f935' class='c014'><sup>[935]</sup></a> just the -opposite of that maintained by Parmenides. Some -<span class='pageno' id='Page_385'>385</span>have been led by this to deny the Eleaticism of -Leukippos altogether; but this denial is really based -on the view that the system of Parmenides was -“metaphysical,” coupled with a great reluctance to -admit that so scientific a hypothesis as the atomic -theory can have had a “metaphysical” origin. It is -really due to prejudice, and we must not suppose -Theophrastos himself believed the two theories to be -so far apart as they seem.<a id='r936' /><a href='#f936' class='c014'><sup>[936]</sup></a> As this is really the most -important point in the history of early Greek philosophy, -and as, rightly understood, it furnishes the key to the -whole development, it is worth while to transcribe a -passage of Aristotle<a id='r937' /><a href='#f937' class='c014'><sup>[937]</sup></a> which explains the historical -connexion in a way that leaves nothing to be desired.</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Leukippos and Demokritos have decided about all things -practically by the same method and on the same theory, -taking as their starting-point what naturally comes first. Some -of the ancients had held that the real must necessarily be -one and immovable; for, said they, empty space is not -real, and motion would be impossible without empty space -separated from matter; nor, further, could reality be a many, -if there were nothing to separate things. And it makes no -difference if any one holds that the All is not continuous, but -discrete, with its parts in contact (<em>the Pythagorean view</em>), -instead of holding that reality is many, not one, and that -there is empty space. For, if it is divisible at every point -there is no one, and therefore no many, and the Whole is -empty (<cite>Zeno</cite>); while, if we say it is divisible in one place -<span class='pageno' id='Page_386'>386</span>and not in another, this looks like an arbitrary fiction; for -up to what point and for what reason will part of the Whole -be in this state and be full, while the rest is discrete? And, -on the same grounds, they further say that there can be no -motion. In consequence of these reasonings, then, going -beyond perception and overlooking it in the belief that we -ought to follow the argument, they say that the All is one -and immovable (<em>Parmenides</em>), and some of them that it is -infinite (<em>Melissos</em>), for any limit would be bounded by empty -space. This, then, is the opinion they expressed about the -truth, and these are the reasons which led them to do so. -Now, so far as arguments go, this conclusion does seem to -follow; but, if we appeal to facts, to hold such a view looks -like madness. No one who is mad is so far out of his -senses that fire and ice appear to him to be one; it is only -things that are right, and things that appear right from habit, -in which madness makes some people see no difference.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Leukippos, however, thought he had a theory which was -in harmony with sense-perception, and did not do away with -coming into being and passing away, nor motion, nor the -multiplicity of things. He made this concession to experience, -while he conceded, on the other hand, to those who invented -the One that motion was impossible without the void, that -the void was not real, and that nothing of what was real was -not real. “For,” said he, “that which is strictly speaking -real is an absolute <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>plenum</i></span>; but the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>plenum</i></span> is not one. On -the contrary, there are an infinite number of them, and they -are invisible owing to the smallness of their bulk. They -move in the void (for there is a void); and by their coming -together they effect coming into being; by their separation, -passing away.”</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It is true that in this passage Zeno and Melissos -are not named, but the reference to them is unmistakable. -The argument of Zeno against the Pythagoreans -is clearly given; and Melissos was the only Eleatic who -made reality infinite, a point which is distinctly mentioned. -We are therefore justified by Aristotle’s words -<span class='pageno' id='Page_387'>387</span>in explaining the genesis of Atomism and its relation -to Eleaticism as follows. Zeno had shown that all -pluralist systems yet known, and especially Pythagoreanism, -were unable to stand before the arguments -from infinite divisibility which he adduced. Melissos -had used the same argument against Anaxagoras, and -had added, by way of <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>reductio ad absurdum</i></span>, that, if -there were many things, each one of them must be -such as the Eleatics held the One to be. To this -Leukippos answers, “Why not?” He admitted the -force of Zeno’s arguments by setting a limit to -divisibility, and to each of the atoms which he thus -arrived at he ascribed all the predicates of the Eleatic -One; for Parmenides had shown that if <em>it is</em>, it must -have these predicates somehow. The same view is -implied in a passage of Aristotle’s <cite>Physics</cite>.<a id='r938' /><a href='#f938' class='c014'><sup>[938]</sup></a> “Some,” -we are there told, “surrendered to both arguments, to the -first, the argument that all things are one, if the word -<em>is</em> is used in one sense only (<em>Parmenides</em>), by affirming -the reality of what is not; to the second, that based -on dichotomy (<em>Zeno</em>), by introducing indivisible magnitudes.” -Finally, it is only by regarding the matter in -this way that we can attach any meaning to another -statement of Aristotle’s to the effect that Leukippos -and Demokritos, as well as the Pythagoreans, virtually -make all things out of numbers.<a id='r939' /><a href='#f939' class='c014'><sup>[939]</sup></a> Leukippos, in fact, -gave the Pythagorean monads the character of the -Parmenidean One.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Atoms.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec174'></a>174. We must observe that the atom is not mathematically -<span class='pageno' id='Page_388'>388</span>indivisible, for it has magnitude; it is, -however, physically indivisible, because, like the One -of Parmenides, it contains in it no empty space.<a id='r940' /><a href='#f940' class='c014'><sup>[940]</sup></a> Each -atom has extension, and all the atoms are exactly -alike in substance.<a id='r941' /><a href='#f941' class='c014'><sup>[941]</sup></a> Therefore all differences in things -must be accounted for either by the shape of the atoms -or by their arrangement. It seems probable that the -three ways in which differences arise, namely, shape, -position, and arrangement, were already distinguished -by Leukippos; for Aristotle mentions his name in -connexion with them.<a id='r942' /><a href='#f942' class='c014'><sup>[942]</sup></a> This explains, too, why the -atoms are called “forms” or “figures,” a way of -speaking which seems to be of Pythagorean origin.<a id='r943' /><a href='#f943' class='c014'><sup>[943]</sup></a> -That they are also called φύσις<a id='r944' /><a href='#f944' class='c014'><sup>[944]</sup></a> is quite intelligible -if we remember what was said of that word in -the Introduction (<a href='#In.7'>§ VII</a>.). The differences in shape, -order, and position just referred to account for the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_389'>389</span>“opposites,” the “elements” being regarded rather as -aggregates of these (πανσπερμίαι), as by Anaxagoras.<a id='r945' /><a href='#f945' class='c014'><sup>[945]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The void.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec175'></a>175. Leukippos affirmed the existence both of the -Full and the Empty, terms which he may have -borrowed from Melissos.<a id='r946' /><a href='#f946' class='c014'><sup>[946]</sup></a> As we have seen, he had -to assume the existence of empty space, which the -Eleatics had denied, in order to make his explanation -of the nature of body possible. Here again he is -developing a Pythagorean view. The Pythagoreans -had spoken of the void, which kept the units apart; -but they had not distinguished it from atmospheric -air (<a href='#sec53'>§ 53</a>), which Empedokles had shown to be a -corporeal substance (<a href='#sec107'>§ 107</a>). Parmenides, indeed, had -formed a clearer conception of space, but only to -deny its reality. Leukippos started from this. He -admitted, indeed, that space was not real, that is to -say, corporeal; but he maintained that it existed all -the same. He hardly, it is true, had words to express -his discovery in; for the verb “to be” had hitherto -been used by philosophers only of body. But he did -his best to make his meaning clear by saying that -“what is not” (in the old corporealist sense) “is” (in -another sense) just as much as “what is.” The void -is as real as body.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is a curious fact that the Atomists, who are -commonly regarded as the great materialists of -antiquity, were actually the first to say distinctly that -a thing might be real without being a body.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Cosmology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec176'></a>176. It might seem a hopeless task to disentangle -the cosmology of Leukippos from that of Demokritos, -with which it is generally identified; but that very fact -<span class='pageno' id='Page_390'>390</span>affords an invaluable clue. So far as we know, no one -after Theophrastos was able to distinguish the doctrines -of the two men, and it follows from this that all definite -statements about Leukippos in later writers must, in -the long run, go back to him. If we follow this up, -we shall be able to give a fairly clear account of the -system, and we shall even come across some views -which are peculiar to Leukippos and were not adopted -by Demokritos.<a id='r947' /><a href='#f947' class='c014'><sup>[947]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>We shall start from the fuller of the two doxographies -in Diogenes, which comes from an epitome of -Theophrastos.<a id='r948' /><a href='#f948' class='c014'><sup>[948]</sup></a> It is as follows:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>He says that the All is infinite, and that it is part full, and -part empty. These (the full and the empty), he says, are the -elements. From them arise innumerable worlds and are -resolved into them. The worlds come into being thus. -There were borne along by “abscision from the infinite” -many bodies of all sorts of figures “into a mighty void,” and -they being gathered together produce a single vortex. In it, -as they came into collision with one another and were whirled -round in all manner of ways, those which were alike were -separated apart and came to their likes. But, as they were -no longer able to revolve in equilibrium owing to their -multitude, those of them that were fine went out to the -external void, as if passed through a sieve; the rest stayed -together, and becoming entangled with one another, ran -down together, and made a first spherical structure. This -was in substance like a membrane or skin containing in itself -all kinds of bodies. And, as these bodies were borne round in -a vortex, in virtue of the resistance of the middle, the surrounding -membrane became thin, as the contiguous bodies kept -<span class='pageno' id='Page_391'>391</span>flowing together from contact with the vortex. And in this -way the earth came into being, those things which had been -borne towards the middle abiding there. Moreover, the -containing membrane was increased by the further separating -out of bodies from outside; and, being itself carried round in -a vortex, it further got possession of all with which it had -come in contact. Some of these becoming entangled, produce -a structure, which was at first moist and muddy; but, when -they had been dried and were revolving along with the vortex -of the whole, they were then ignited and produced the substance -of the heavenly bodies. The circle of the sun is the -outermost, that of the moon is nearest to the earth, and those -of the others are between these. And all the heavenly bodies -are ignited because of the swiftness of their motion; while -the sun is also ignited by the stars. But the moon only -receives a small portion of fire. The sun and the moon are -eclipsed.... (And the obliquity of the zodiac is produced) -by the earth being inclined towards the south; and the -northern parts of it have constant snow and are cold and -frozen. And the sun is eclipsed rarely, and the moon continually, -because their circles are unequal. And just as there -are comings into being of the world, so there are growths and -decays and passings away in virtue of a certain necessity, of -the nature of which he gives no clear account.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>As it comes substantially from Theophrastos, this -passage is to be regarded as good evidence for the -cosmology of Leukippos, and it is confirmed in an -interesting way by certain Epicurean extracts from -the <cite>Great Diakosmos</cite>.<a id='r949' /><a href='#f949' class='c014'><sup>[949]</sup></a> These, however, as is natural, -give a specially Epicurean turn to some of the -doctrines, and must therefore be used with caution.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Relation to Ionic cosmology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec177'></a>177. The general impression which we get from -the cosmology of Leukippos is that he either ignored -<span class='pageno' id='Page_392'>392</span>or had never heard of the great advance in the general -view of the world which was due to the later Pythagoreans. -He is as reactionary in his detailed cosmology -as he was daring in his general physical theory. -We seem to be reading once more of the speculations -of Anaximenes or even of Anaximander, though there -are traces of Empedokles and Anaxagoras too. The -explanation is not hard to see. Leukippos would not -learn a cosmology from his Eleatic teachers; and, even -when he found it possible to construct one without -giving up the Parmenidean view of reality, he was -necessarily thrown back upon the older systems of -Ionia. The result was unfortunate. The astronomy -of Demokritos, so far as we know it, was still of this -childish character. There is no reason to doubt the -statement of Seneca that he did not venture to say -how many planets there were.<a id='r950' /><a href='#f950' class='c014'><sup>[950]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>This, I take it, is what gives plausibility to Gomperz’s -statement that Atomism was “the ripe fruit on the tree -of the old Ionic doctrine of matter which had been -tended by the Ionian physiologists.”<a id='r951' /><a href='#f951' class='c014'><sup>[951]</sup></a> The detailed -cosmology was certainly such a fruit, and it was -possibly over-ripe; but the atomic theory proper, in -which the real greatness of Leukippos comes out, was -wholly Eleatic in its origin. Nevertheless, it will repay -us to examine the cosmology too; for such an examination -will serve better than anything else to bring out -the true nature of the historical development of which -it was the outcome.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The eternal motion.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec178'></a>178. Leukippos represented the atoms as having -been always in motion. Aristotle puts this in his own -<span class='pageno' id='Page_393'>393</span>way. The atomists, he says, “indolently” left it unexplained -what was the source of motion, and they -did not say what sort of motion it was. In other -words, they did not decide whether it was a “natural -motion” or one impressed on them “contrary to their -nature.”<a id='r952' /><a href='#f952' class='c014'><sup>[952]</sup></a> He even went so far as to say that they -made it “spontaneous,” a remark which has given rise -to the erroneous view that they held it was due to -chance.<a id='r953' /><a href='#f953' class='c014'><sup>[953]</sup></a> Aristotle does not say that, however; but -only that the atomists did not explain the motion of -the atoms in any of the ways in which he himself -explained the motion of the elements. They neither -ascribed to them a natural motion like the circular -motion of the heavens and the rectilinear motion of -the four elements in the sublunary region, nor did they -give them a forced motion contrary to their own nature, -like the upward motion which may be given to the -heavy elements and the downward which may be -given to the light. The only fragment of Leukippos -which has survived is an express denial of chance. -“Naught happens for nothing,” he said “but everything -from a ground and of necessity.”<a id='r954' /><a href='#f954' class='c014'><sup>[954]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>If we put the matter historically, all this means that -Leukippos did not, like Empedokles and Anaxagoras, -find it necessary to assume a force to originate motion. -He had no need of Love and Strife or Mind, and the -reason is clear. Though Empedokles and Anaxagoras -<span class='pageno' id='Page_394'>394</span>had tried to explain multiplicity and motion, they had -not broken so radically as Leukippos did with the -Parmenidean One. Both of them started with a condition -of matter in which the “roots” or “seeds” were -mixed so as to be “all together,” and they therefore -required something to break up this unity. Leukippos, -who started with an infinite number of Parmenidean -“Ones,” so to speak, required no external agency to -separate them. What he had to do was just the -opposite. He had to give an explanation of their -coming together, and there was nothing so far to -prevent his return to the old and natural idea that -motion does not require any explanation at all.<a id='r955' /><a href='#f955' class='c014'><sup>[955]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>This, then, is what seems to follow from the -criticisms of Aristotle and from the nature of the -case; but it will be observed that it is not consistent -with Zeller’s opinion that the original motion of the -atoms is a fall through infinite space, as in the system -of Epicurus. Zeller’s view depends, of course, on the -further belief that the atoms have weight, and that -weight is the tendency of bodies to fall, so we must -go on to consider whether and in what sense weight -is a property of the atoms.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The weight of the atoms.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec179'></a>179. As is well known, Epicurus held that the -atoms were naturally heavy, and therefore fell continually -in the infinite void. The school tradition is, -however, that the “natural weight” of the atoms was -an addition made by Epicurus himself to the original -atomic system. Demokritos, we are told, assigned two -properties to atoms, magnitude and form, to which -Epicurus added a third, weight.<a id='r956' /><a href='#f956' class='c014'><sup>[956]</sup></a> On the other hand, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_395'>395</span>Aristotle distinctly says in one place that Demokritos -held the atoms were heavier “in proportion to their -excess,” and this seems to be explained by the statement -of Theophrastos that, according to him, weight -depended on magnitude.<a id='r957' /><a href='#f957' class='c014'><sup>[957]</sup></a> It will be observed that, -even so, it is not represented as a primary property of -the atoms in the same sense as magnitude.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is impossible to solve this apparent contradiction -without referring briefly to the history of Greek ideas -about weight. It is clear that lightness and weight -would be among the very first properties of body to -be distinctly recognised as such. The necessity of -lifting burdens must very soon have led men to -distinguish them, though no doubt in some primitive -and more or less animistic form. Both weight and -lightness would be thought of as <em>things</em> that were <em>in</em> -bodies. Now it is a remarkable feature of early Greek -philosophy that from the first it was able to shake -itself free from this idea. Weight is never spoken of -as a “thing” as, for instance, warmth and cold are; -and, so far as we can see, not one of the thinkers we -<span class='pageno' id='Page_396'>396</span>have studied hitherto thought it necessary to give any -explanation of it at all, or even to say anything about -it.<a id='r958' /><a href='#f958' class='c014'><sup>[958]</sup></a> The motions and resistances which popular theory -ascribes to weight are all explained in some other way. -Aristotle distinctly declares that none of his predecessors -had said anything of absolute weight and -lightness. They had only treated of the relatively -light and heavy.<a id='r959' /><a href='#f959' class='c014'><sup>[959]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>This way of regarding the popular notions of weight -and lightness is clearly formulated for the first time in -Plato’s <cite>Timaeus</cite>.<a id='r960' /><a href='#f960' class='c014'><sup>[960]</sup></a> There is no such thing in the world, -we are told there, as “up” or “down.” The middle of -the world is not “down” but “just in the middle,” and -there is no reason why any point in the circumference -should be said to be “above” or “below” another. It -is really the tendency of bodies towards their kin that -makes us call a falling body heavy and the place to -which it falls “below.” Here Plato is really giving the -view which was taken more or less consciously by his -predecessors, and it is not till the time of Aristotle that -it is questioned.<a id='r961' /><a href='#f961' class='c014'><sup>[961]</sup></a> For reasons which do not concern -us here, he definitely identified the circumference of -the heavens with “up” and the middle of the world -<span class='pageno' id='Page_397'>397</span>with “down,” and equipped the four elements with -natural weight and lightness that they might perform -their rectilinear motions between them. As, however, -Aristotle believed there was only one world, and as he -did not ascribe weight to the heavens proper, the effect -of this reactionary theory upon his cosmical system -was not great; it was only when Epicurus tried to -combine it with the infinite void that its true character -emerged. It seems to me that the nightmare of -Epicurean atomism can only be explained on the -assumption that an Aristotelian doctrine was violently -adapted to a theory which really excluded it.<a id='r962' /><a href='#f962' class='c014'><sup>[962]</sup></a> It is -totally unlike anything we meet with in earlier days.</p> - -<p class='c002'>This brief historical survey suggests at once that it -is only in the vortex that the atoms acquire weight -and lightness,<a id='r963' /><a href='#f963' class='c014'><sup>[963]</sup></a> which are, after all, only popular names -for facts which can be further analysed. We are told -that Leukippos held that one effect of the vortex was -that like atoms were brought together with their likes.<a id='r964' /><a href='#f964' class='c014'><sup>[964]</sup></a> -In this way of speaking we seem to see the influence -of Empedokles, though the “likeness” is of another -kind. It is the finer atoms that are forced to the -circumference, while the larger tend to the centre. We -<span class='pageno' id='Page_398'>398</span>may express that by saying that the larger are heavy -and the smaller light, and this will amply account for -everything Aristotle and Theophrastos say; for there -is no passage where the atoms outside the vortex are -distinctly said to be heavy or light.<a id='r965' /><a href='#f965' class='c014'><sup>[965]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>There is a striking confirmation of the view just -given in the atomist cosmology quoted above.<a id='r966' /><a href='#f966' class='c014'><sup>[966]</sup></a> We -are told there that the separation of the larger and -smaller atoms was due to the fact that they were “no -longer able to revolve in equilibrium owing to their -number,” which implies that they had previously been -in a state of “equilibrium” or “equipoise.” Now the -word ἰσορροπία has no necessary implication of weight -in Greek. A ῥοπή is a mere leaning or inclination in -a certain direction, which may be caused by weight or -anything else. The state of ἰσορροπία is therefore -that in which the tendency in one direction is exactly -equal to the tendency in any other, and such a state -is more naturally described as the absence of weight -than as the presence of opposite weights neutralising -one another. That way of looking at it may be useful -from the point of view of later science, but it is not safe -to attribute it to the thinkers of the fifth century <span class='fss'>B.C.</span></p> - -<p class='c002'>If we no longer regard the “eternal motion” of the -premundane and extramundane atoms as due to their -weight, there is no reason for describing it as a fall. -None of our authorities do as a matter of fact so describe -it, nor do they tell us in any way what it was. It is -safest to say that it is simply a confused motion this -<span class='pageno' id='Page_399'>399</span>way and that.<a id='r967' /><a href='#f967' class='c014'><sup>[967]</sup></a> It is possible that the comparison of -the motion of the atoms of the soul to that of the -motes in a sunbeam coming through a window, which -Aristotle attributes to Demokritos,<a id='r968' /><a href='#f968' class='c014'><sup>[968]</sup></a> is really intended -as an illustration of the original motion of the atoms -still surviving in the soul. The fact that it is also a -Pythagorean comparison<a id='r969' /><a href='#f969' class='c014'><sup>[969]</sup></a> in no way tells against this; -for we have seen that there is a real connexion -between the Pythagorean monads and the atoms. It is -also significant that the point of the comparison appears -to have been the fact that the motes in the sunbeam -move even when there is no wind, so that it would be -a very apt illustration indeed of the motion inherent in -the atoms apart from the secondary motions produced by -impact and collision. That, however, is problematical; -it only serves to suggest the sort of motion which it -is natural to suppose that Leukippos gave his atoms.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The vortex.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec180'></a>180. But what are we to say of the vortex itself -which produces these effects? Gomperz observes that -they seem to be “the precise contrary of what they -should have been by the laws of physics”; for, “as -every centrifugal machine would show, it is the heaviest -<span class='pageno' id='Page_400'>400</span>substances which are hurled to the greatest distance.”<a id='r970' /><a href='#f970' class='c014'><sup>[970]</sup></a> -Are we to suppose that Leukippos was ignorant of this -fact, which was known to Anaxagoras, though Gomperz -is wrong in supposing there is any reason to believe -that Anaximander took account of it?<a id='r971' /><a href='#f971' class='c014'><sup>[971]</sup></a> Now we -know from Aristotle that all those who accounted for -the earth being in the centre of the world by means -of a vortex appealed to the analogy of eddies in wind -or water,<a id='r972' /><a href='#f972' class='c014'><sup>[972]</sup></a> and Gomperz supposes that the whole theory -was an erroneous generalisation of this observation. If -we look at the matter more closely, we can see, I think, -that there is no error at all.</p> - -<p class='c002'>We must remember that all the parts of the vortex -are in contact, and that it is just this contact (ἐπίψαυσις) -by which the motion of the outermost parts is communicated -to those within them. The larger bodies -are more able to resist this communicated motion than -the smaller, and in this way they make their way to -the centre where the motion is least, and force the -smaller bodies out. This resistance is surely just the -ἀντέρεισις τοῦ μέσου which is mentioned in the doxography -of Leukippos,<a id='r973' /><a href='#f973' class='c014'><sup>[973]</sup></a> and it is quite in accordance -with this that, on the atomist theory, the nearer a -heavenly body is to the centre, the slower is its -revolution.<a id='r974' /><a href='#f974' class='c014'><sup>[974]</sup></a> There is no question of “centrifugal -<span class='pageno' id='Page_401'>401</span>force” at all, and the analogy of eddies in air and -water is quite satisfactory.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The earth and the heavenly bodies.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec181'></a>181. When we come to details, the reactionary -character of the atomist cosmology is very manifest. -The earth was shaped like a tambourine, and floated -on the air.<a id='r975' /><a href='#f975' class='c014'><sup>[975]</sup></a> It was inclined towards the south because -the heat of that region made the air thinner, while the -ice and cold of the north made it denser and more -able to support the earth.<a id='r976' /><a href='#f976' class='c014'><sup>[976]</sup></a> This accounts for the -obliquity of the zodiac. Like Anaximander (<a href='#sec19'>§ 19</a>), -Leukippos held that the sun was further away than the -stars, though he also held that these were further -away than the moon.<a id='r977' /><a href='#f977' class='c014'><sup>[977]</sup></a> This certainly suggests that he -made no clear distinction between the planets and the -fixed stars. He does, however, appear to have known -the theory of eclipses as given by Anaxagoras.<a id='r978' /><a href='#f978' class='c014'><sup>[978]</sup></a> -Such other pieces of information as have come down -to us are mainly of interest as showing that, in some -important respects, the doctrine of Leukippos was not -the same as that taught afterwards by Demokritos.<a id='r979' /><a href='#f979' class='c014'><sup>[979]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Perception.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec182'></a>182. Aetios expressly attributes to Leukippos the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_402'>402</span>doctrine that the objects of sense-perception exist “by -law” and not by nature.<a id='r980' /><a href='#f980' class='c014'><sup>[980]</sup></a> This must come from -Theophrastos; for, as we have seen, all later writers -quote Demokritos only. A further proof of the -correctness of the statement is that we also find -it attributed to Diogenes of Apollonia, who, as -Theophrastos tells us, derived some of his views from -Leukippos. There is nothing surprising in this. -Parmenides had already declared the senses to be -deceitful, and said that colour and the like were only -“names,”<a id='r981' /><a href='#f981' class='c014'><sup>[981]</sup></a> and Empedokles had also spoken of coming -into being and passing away as only “names.”<a id='r982' /><a href='#f982' class='c014'><sup>[982]</sup></a> It -is not likely that Leukippos went much further than -this. It would probably be wrong to credit him with -Demokritos’s clear distinction between genuine and -“bastard” knowledge, or that between what are now -called the primary and secondary qualities of matter.<a id='r983' /><a href='#f983' class='c014'><sup>[983]</sup></a> -These distinctions imply a conscious epistemological -theory, and all we are entitled to say is that the germs -of this were already to be found in the writings of -Leukippos and his predecessors. Of course, these do -not make Leukippos a sceptic any more than Empedokles -or Anaxagoras, whose remark on this subject -(fr. <a href='#An.21a'>21<i>a</i></a>) Demokritos is said to have quoted with -approval.<a id='r984' /><a href='#f984' class='c014'><sup>[984]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>There appear to be sufficient grounds for ascribing -<span class='pageno' id='Page_403'>403</span>the theory of perception by means of <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>simulacra</i></span> or -εἴδωλα, which played such a part in the systems of -Demokritos and Epicurus, to Leukippos.<a id='r985' /><a href='#f985' class='c014'><sup>[985]</sup></a> It is a very -natural development of the Empedoklean theory of -“effluences” (<a href='#sec118'>§ 118</a>). It hardly seems likely, however, -that he went into great detail on the subject, and it -is safer to credit Demokritos with the elaboration of the -theory.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Importance of Leukippos.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec183'></a>183. We have seen incidentally that there is a wide -divergence of opinion among recent writers as to the -place of Atomism in Greek thought. The question at -issue is really whether Leukippos reached his theory -on what are called “metaphysical grounds,” that is, -from a consideration of the Eleatic theory of reality, or -whether, on the contrary, it was a pure development of -Ionian science. The foregoing exposition will suggest -the true answer. So far as his general theory of the -physical constitution of the world is concerned, it has -been shown, I think, that it was derived entirely from -Eleatic and Pythagorean sources, while the detailed -cosmology was in the main a more or less successful -attempt to make the older Ionian beliefs fit into this -new physical theory. In any case, his greatness -consisted in his having been the first to see how body -must be regarded if we take it to be ultimate reality. -The old Milesian theory had found its most adequate -expression in the system of Anaximenes (<a href='#sec31'>§ 31</a>), but of -course rarefaction and condensation cannot be clearly -represented except on the hypothesis of molecules or -atoms coming closer together or going further apart in -<span class='pageno' id='Page_404'>404</span>space. Parmenides had seen that very clearly (fr.<a href='#Pa.2'>2</a>), -and it was the Eleatic criticism which forced Leukippos -to formulate his system as he did. Even Anaxagoras -took account of Zeno’s arguments about divisibility -(<a href='#sec128'>§ 128</a>), but his system of qualitatively different “seeds” -was lacking in that simplicity which has always been -the chief attraction of atomism.</p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f921'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r921'>921</a>. Theophrastos said he was an Eleate or a Milesian (R. P. 185), while -Diogenes (ix. 30) says he was an Eleate or, according to some, an Abderite. -These statements are exactly parallel to the discrepancies about the native -cities of the Pythagoreans already noted (Chap. VII. p. 327, <a href='#f763'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 763</ins></a>). -Diogenes adds that, according to others, Leukippos was a Melian, which -is a common confusion. Aetios (i. 7. 1) calls Diagoras of Melos a Milesian -(cf. <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 14). Demokritos was called by some a Milesian (R. P. 186) -for the same reason that Leukippos is called an Eleate. We may also -compare the doubt as to whether Herodotos called himself a Halikarnassian -or a Thourian.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f922'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r922'>922</a>. Diog. x. 13 (R. P. 185 b). The theory was revived by E. Rohde. -For the literature of the controversy, see R. P. 185 b. Diels’s refutation of -Rohde has convinced most competent judges. Brieger’s attempt to unsettle -the question again (<cite>Hermes</cite>, xxxvi. pp. 166 sqq.) is only half-hearted, and -quite unconvincing. As will be seen, however, I agree with his main -contention that atomism comes after the systems of Empedokles and -Anaxagoras.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f923'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r923'>923</a>. Diog. ix. 41 (R. P. 187). As Diels points out, the statement suggests -that Anaxagoras was dead when Demokritos wrote. It is probable, too, -that it was this which made Apollodoros fix the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span> of Demokritos just -forty years after that of Anaxagoras (Jacoby, p. 290). We cannot make -much of the other statement of Demokritos that he wrote the Μικρὸς -διάκοσμος 750 years after the fall of Troy; for we cannot be sure what -era he used (Jacoby, p. 292).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f924'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r924'>924</a>. Theophr. <i>ap.</i> Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 25, 1 (R. P. 206 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f925'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r925'>925</a>. This was stated by Thrasylos in his list of the tetralogies in which he -arranged the works of Demokritos, as he did those of Plato. He gives -Tetr. iii. thus: (1) Μέγας διάκοσμος (ὃν οἱ περὶ Θεόφραστον Λευκίππου -φασὶν εἶναι); (2) Μικρὸς διάκοσμος; (3) Κοσμογραφίη; (4) Περὶ τῶν -πλανήτων. The two διάκοσμοι would only be distinguished as μέγας and -μικρός when they came to be included in the same <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>corpus</i></span>. A quotation -purporting to be from the Περὶ νοῦ of Leukippos is preserved in Stob. i. -160. The phrase ἐν τοῖς Λευκίππου καλουμένοις λόγοις in <cite>M.X.G.</cite> 980 a 8 -seems to refer to Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> 325 a 24, Λεύκιππος δ’ ἔχειν ᾠήθη -λόγους κ.τ.λ., and would prove nothing in any case. Cf. Chap. II. -p. 138, <a href='#f305'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 305</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f926'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r926'>926</a>. See above, p. 380, <a href='#f921'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 921</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f927'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r927'>927</a>. The aristocrats had massacred the democrats, and were overthrown -in their turn by the Athenians. Cf. [Xen.] Ἀθ. πολ. 3, 11. The date is -fixed by <cite>C.I.A.</cite> i. 22 a.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f928'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r928'>928</a>. Theophr. <i>ap.</i> Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 28, 4 (R. P. 185). Note the difference -of case in κοινωνήσας Παρμενίδῃ τῆς φιλοσοφίας and κοινωνήσας τῆς -Ἀναξιμένους φιλοσοφίας which is the phrase used by Theophrastos of -Anaxagoras (p. 293, <a href='#f660'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 660</ins></a>). The dative seems to imply a personal relationship. -It is quite inadmissible to render “was familiar with the doctrine of -Parmenides,” as is done in Gomperz, <cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, vol. i. p. 345.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f929'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r929'>929</a>. See <a href='#sec84'>§ 84</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f930'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r930'>930</a>. Cf. Diog. ix. 30, οὕτος ἤκουσε Ζήνωνος (R. P. 185 b); and Hipp. -<cite>Ref.</cite> i. 12, 1, Λεύκιππος ... Ζήνωνος ἑταῖρος. Diels conjectured that the -name of Zeno had been dropped in the extract from Theophrastos preserved -by Simplicius (<cite>Dox.</cite> 483 a 11).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f931'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r931'>931</a>. This point is important, though the argument is weakened by Brieger’s -overstatement of it in <cite>Hermes</cite>, xxxvi. p. 183. He says that to assume such -a reaction as Anaxagoreanism after the atomic system had once been -discovered would be something unexampled in the history of Greek -philosophy. Diogenes of Apollonia proves the contrary. The real point -is that Empedokles and Anaxagoras were men of a different stamp. So -far as Empedokles is concerned, Gomperz states the case rightly (<cite>Greek -Thinkers</cite>, vol. i. p. 560).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f932'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r932'>932</a>. See above, Chap. V. p. 224, <a href='#f492'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 492</ins></a>; and Brieger in <cite>Hermes</cite>, xxxvi. -p. 171.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f933'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r933'>933</a>. Diels (formerly at least) maintained both these things. See above, -p. 359, <a href='#f859'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 859</ins></a>; and p. 382, <a href='#f930'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 930</ins></a>. If, as seems probable (<a href='#sec158'>§ 158</a>), Zeno -wrote his book some time between 470 and 460 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, Leukippos can -hardly have written his before 450 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, and even that is too late for him -to have influenced Empedokles. It may well have been later still.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f934'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r934'>934</a>. See above, Chap. VI. <a href='#sec131'>§ 131</a>; and Chap. VII. <a href='#sec145'>§ 145</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f935'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r935'>935</a>. The words ὡς δοκεῖ do not imply assent to the view introduced by -them; indeed they are used, far more often than not, in reference to beliefs -which the writer does not accept. The translation “methinks” in -Gomperz, <cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, vol. i. p. 345, is therefore most misleading, -and there is no justification for Brieger’s statement (<cite>Hermes</cite>, xxxvi. p. 165) -that Theophrastos dissents from Aristotle’s view as given in the passage -about to be quoted. We should be saved from many errors if we -accustomed ourselves to translate δοκεῖ by “is thought” or “is believed” -instead of by “seems.”</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f936'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r936'>936</a>. This prejudice is apparent all through Gomperz’s <cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, -and seriously impairs the value of that fascinating, though somewhat -imaginative work. It is amusing to notice that Brieger, from the same -point of view, regards the custom of making Anaxagoras the last of the -Presocratics as due to theological prepossessions (<cite>Hermes</cite>, xxxvi. p. 185). -I am sorry that I cannot agree with either side; but the bitterness of the -disputants bears witness to the fundamental importance of the questions -raised by the early Greek philosophers.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f937'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r937'>937</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> Α, 8. 324 b 35 (R. P. 193).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f938'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r938'>938</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Α, 3. 187 a 1 (R. P. 134 b).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f939'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r939'>939</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Γ, 4. 303 a 8, τρόπον γάρ τινα καὶ οὕτοι (Λεύκιππος -καὶ Δημόκριτος) πάντα τὰ ὄντα ποιοῦσιν ἀριθμοὺς καὶ ἐξ ἀριθμῶν. This -also serves to explain what Herakleides may have meant by attributing -the theory of corporeal ὄγκοι to the Pythagorean Ekphantos of Syracuse -(above, p. 338, <a href='#f794'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 794</ins></a>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f940'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r940'>940</a>. The Epicureans misunderstood this point, or misrepresented it in -order to magnify their own originality (see Zeller, p. 857, n. 3; Eng. trans. -ii. p. 225, n. 2).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f941'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r941'>941</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Α, 7. 275 b 32, τὴν δὲ φύσιν εἶναί φασιν αὐτῶν -μίαν; <cite>Phys.</cite> Γ, 4. 203 a 34, αὐτῷ (Δημοκρίτῳ) τὸ κοινὸν σῶμα πάντων ἐστὶν -ἀρχή.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f942'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r942'>942</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 4. 985 b 13 (R. P. 192); cf. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> 315 b 6. -As Diels suggests, the illustration from the letters of the alphabet is -probably due to Demokritos. It shows, in any case, how the word -στοιχεῖον came to be used later for “element.” We must read, with -Wilamowitz, τὸ δὲ Ζ τοῦ Η θέσει for τὸ δὲ Ζ τοῦ Ν θέσει, the older -form of the letter Ζ being just an Η laid upon its side (Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Elementum</cite></span>, -p. 13, n. 1).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f943'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r943'>943</a>. Demokritos wrote a work, Περὶ ἰδεῶν (Sext. <cite>Math.</cite> vii. 137; R. P. -204), which Diels identifies with the Περὶ τῶν διαφερόντων ῥυσμῶν of -Thrasylos, <cite>Tetr.</cite> v. 3. Theophrastos refers to Demokritos, ἐν τοῖς περὶ -τῶν εἰδῶν (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Sensibus</cite></span>, § 51). Plut. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>adv. Col.</cite></span> 1111 a, εἶναι δὲ πάντα τὰς -ἀτόμους, ἰδέας ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ καλουμένας (so the MSS.: ἰδίως, Wyttenbach; <ἢ> -ἰδέας, Diels). Arist. Phys. Γ, 4. 203 a 21, (Δημόκριτος) ἐκ τῆς πανσπερμίας -τῶν σχημάτων (ἄπειρα ποιεῖ τὰ στοιχεῖα). Cf. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> Α, 2. 315 b 7 -(R. P. 196).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f944'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r944'>944</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Θ, 9. 265 b 25; Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 1318, 33, ταῦτα γὰρ -(τὰ ἄτομα σώματα) ἐκεῖνοι φύσιν ἐκάλουν.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f945'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r945'>945</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 36, 1 (Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vors.</cite></span> p. 346), and R. P. 196 a.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f946'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r946'>946</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 4. 985 b 4 (R. P. 192). Cf. Melissos, fr. <a href='#Me.7'>7</a> <i>sub fin.</i></p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f947'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r947'>947</a>. Cf. Zeller, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Zu Leukippus”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> xv. p. 138).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f948'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r948'>948</a>. Diog. ix. 31 sqq. (R. P. 197, 197 c). This passage deals expressly -with Leukippos, not with Demokritos or even “Leukippos and -Demokritos.” For the distinction between the “summary” and -“detailed” doxographies in Diogenes, see Appendix, <a href='#app1.15'>§ 15</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f949'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r949'>949</a>. These are to be found in Aet. i. 4 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 289; <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Vors.</cite></span> p. 347; -Usener, <cite>Epicurea</cite>, fr. 308). Epicurus himself in the second epistle -(Diog. x. 88; Usener, p. 37, 7) quotes the phrase ἀποτομὴν ἔχουσα ἀπὸ -τοῦ ἀπείρου.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f950'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r950'>950</a>. Seneca, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Q. Nat.</cite></span> vii. 3.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f951'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r951'>951</a>. Gomperz, <cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, vol. i. p. 323.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f952'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r952'>952</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Θ, 1. 252 a 32 (R. P. 195 a); <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Γ, 2. 300 b 8 -(R. P. 195); <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 4. 985 b 19 (R. P. <i>ib.</i>).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f953'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r953'>953</a>. Arist. <cite>Phys.</cite> Β, 4. 196 a 24 (R. P. 195 d). Cicero, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de nat. D.</cite></span> i. 66 -(R. P. <i>ib.</i>). The latter passage is the source of the phrase “fortuitous -concourse” (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>concurrere</i></span> = συντρέχειν).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f954'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r954'>954</a>. Aet. i. 25, 4 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 321), Λεύκιππος πάντα κατ’ ἀνάγκην, τὴν δ’ -αὐτὴν ὑπάρχειν εἱμαρμένην. λέγει γὰρ ἐν τῷ Περὶ νοῦ· Οὐδὲν χρῆμα -μάτην γίγνεται, ἀλλὰ πάντα ἐκ λόγου τε καὶ ὑπ’ ἀνάγκης.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f955'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r955'>955</a>. Introd. <a href='#In.8'>§ VIII</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f956'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r956'>956</a>. Aet. i. 3, 18 (of Epicurus), συμβεβηκέναι δὲ τοῖς σώμασι τρία ταῦτα, -σχῆμα, μέγεθος, βάρος. Δημόκριτος μὲν γὰρ ἔλεγε δύο, μέγεθός τε καὶ -σχῆμα, ὁ δὲ Ἐπίκουρος τούτοις καὶ τρίτον βάρος προσέθηκεν· ἀνάγκη γάρ, -φησί, κινεῖσθαι τὰ σώματα τῇ τοῦ βάρους πληγῇ· ἐπεὶ (“or else”) οὐ κινηθήσεται; -<i>ib.</i> 12, 6, Δημόκριτος τὰ πρῶτά φησι σώματα, ταῦτα δ’ ἦν τὰ -ναστά, βάρος μὲν οὐκ ἔχειν, κινεῖσθαι δὲ κατ’ ἀλληλοτυπίαν ἐν τῷ ἀπείρῳ. -Cic. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de fato</cite></span>, 20, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“vim motus habebant (atomi) a Democrito impulsionis quam -plagam ille appellat, a te, Epicure, gravitatis et ponderis.”</span> These passages -represent the Epicurean school tradition, which would hardly venture to -misrepresent Demokritos on so important a point. His works were still -accessible. It is confirmed by the Academic tradition in <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Fin.</cite></span> i. 17 -that Demokritos taught the atoms moved <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“in infinito inani, in quo nihil -nec summum nec infimum nec medium nec extremum sit.”</span> This doctrine, -we are told, was “depraved” by Epicurus.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f957'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r957'>957</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Gen. Corr.</cite></span> 326 a 9, καίτοι βαρύτερόν γε κατὰ τὴν ὑπεροχήν -φησιν εἶναι Δημόκριτος ἕκαστον τῶν ἀδιαιρέτων. I cannot believe this -means anything else than what Theophrastos says in his fragment on -sensation, § 61 (R. P. 199), βαρὺ μὲν οὖν καὶ κοῦφον τῷ μεγέθει διαιρεῖ -Δημόκριτος.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f958'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r958'>958</a>. In Aet. i. 12, where the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>placita</i></span> regarding the heavy and light are -given, no philosopher earlier than Plato is referred to. Parmenides (fr. -8, 59) speaks of the dark element as ἐμβριθές. I do not think that there -is any other place where weight is even mentioned in the fragments of the -early philosophers.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f959'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r959'>959</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, 308 a 9, περὶ μὲν οὖν τῶν ἁπλῶς λεγομένων (βαρέων -καὶ κούφων) οὐδὲν εἴρηται παρὰ τῶν πρότερον.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f960'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r960'>960</a>. Plato, <cite>Tim.</cite> 61 c 3 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f961'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r961'>961</a>. Zeller says (p. 876) that in antiquity no one ever understood by weight -anything else than the property of bodies in virtue of which they move -downwards; except that in such systems as represent all forms of matter -as contained in a sphere, “above” is identified with the circumference and -“below” with the centre. As to that, I can only say that no such theory -of weight is to be found in the fragments of the early philosophers or is -anywhere ascribed to them, while Plato expressly denies it.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f962'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r962'>962</a>. The Aristotelian criticisms which may have affected Epicurus are -such as we find in <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, 275 b 29 sqq. Aristotle there argues that, -as Leukippos and Demokritos made the φύσις of the atoms one, they were -bound to give them a single motion. That is just what Epicurus did, but -Aristotle’s argument implies that Leukippos and Demokritos did not. -Though he gave the atoms weight, Epicurus could not accept Aristotle’s -view that some bodies are naturally light. The appearance of lightness is -due to ἔκθλιψις, the squeezing out of the smaller atoms by the larger.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f963'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r963'>963</a>. In dealing with Empedokles, Aristotle expressly makes this distinction. -Cf. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Β, 13, especially 295 a 32 sqq., where he points out that -Empedokles does not account for the weight of bodies on the earth (οὐ γὰρ -ἥ γε δίνη πλησιάζει πρὸς ἡμᾶς), nor for the weight of bodies before the -vortex arose (πρὶν γενέσθαι τὴν δίνην).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f964'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r964'>964</a>. Diog., <i>loc. cit.</i> (p. 390).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f965'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r965'>965</a>. This seems to be in the main the view of Dyroff, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Demokritstudien</cite></span> -(1899), pp. 31 sqq., though I should not say that lightness and weight only -arose in connexion with the atoms of the <em>earth</em> (p. 35). If we substitute -“world” for “earth,” we shall be nearer the truth.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f966'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r966'>966</a>. See above, p. <a href='#Page_390'>390</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f967'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r967'>967</a>. This view was independently advocated by Brieger (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Die Urbewegung -der Atome und die Weltentstehung bei Leucipp und Demokrit</cite></span>, 1884) and -Liepmann (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Die Mechanik der Leucipp-Demokritschen Atome</cite></span>, 1885), -both of whom unnecessarily weakened their position by admitting -that weight is an original property of the atoms. On the other hand, -Brieger denies that the weight of the atoms is the cause of their original -motion, while Liepmann says that before and outside the vortex there is -only a latent weight, a <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><i>Pseudoschwere</i></span>, which only comes into operation -in the world. It is surely simpler to say that this weight, since it produces -no effect, does not yet exist. Zeller rightly argues against Brieger and -Liepmann that, if the atoms have weight, they must fall; but, so far as I -can see, nothing he says tells against their theory as I have restated it. -Gomperz adopts the Brieger-Liepmann explanation. See also Lortzing, -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Jahresber.</cite></span>, 1903, pp. 136 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f968'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r968'>968</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> Α, 2. 403 b 28 sqq. (R. P. 200).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f969'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r969'>969</a>. <i>Ibid.</i> Α, 2. 404 a 17 (R. P. 86 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f970'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r970'>970</a>. Gomperz, <cite>Greek Thinkers</cite>, i. p. 339.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f971'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r971'>971</a>. For Empedokles, see Chap. V. p. <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>; Anaxagoras, see Chap. VI. -p. <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>; and for Anaximander, Chap. I. p. 69, <a href='#f132'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 132</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f972'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r972'>972</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Caelo</cite></span>, Β, 13. 295 a 10, ταύτην γὰρ τὴν αἰτίαν (sc. τὴν -δίνησιν) πάντες λέγουσιν ἐκ τῶν ἐν τοῖς ὑγοῖς καὶ περὶ τὸν ἀέρα συμβαινόντων· -ἐν τούτοις γὰρ ἀεὶ φέρεται τὰ μείζω καὶ τὰ βαρύτερα πρὸς τὸ -μέσον τῆς δίνης.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f973'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r973'>973</a>. Diog. ix. 32. Cf. especially the phrases ὧν κατὰ τὴν τοῦ μέσου -ἀντέρεισιν περιδινουμένων, συμμενόντων ἀεὶ τῶν συνεχῶν κατ’ ἐπίψαυσιν -τῆς δίνης, and συμμενόντων τῶν ἐνεχθέντων ἐπὶ τὸ μέσον.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f974'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r974'>974</a>. Cf. Lucr. v. 621 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f975'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r975'>975</a>. Aet. iii. 3, 10, quoted above, p. 83, <a href='#f168'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 168</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f976'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r976'>976</a>. Aet. iii. 12, 1, Λεύκιππος παρεκπεσεῖν τὴν γῆν εἰς τὰ μεσημβρινὰ -μέρη διὰ τὴν ἐν τοῖς μεσημβρινοῖς ἀραιότητα, ἅτε δὴ πεπηγότων τῶν -βορείων διὰ τὸ κατεψῦχθαι τοῖς κρυμοῖς, τῶν δὲ ἀντιθέτων πεπυρωμένων.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f977'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r977'>977</a>. Diog. ix. 33, εἶναι δὲ τὸν τοῦ ἡλίου κύκλον ἐξώτατον, τὸν δὲ τῆς -σελήνης προσγειότατον, <τοὺς δὲ> τῶν ἄλλων μεταξὺ τούτων.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f978'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r978'>978</a>. From Diog., <i>loc. cit.</i> (<i>supra</i>, p. 391), it appears that he dealt with the -question of the greater frequency of lunar as compared with solar eclipses. -It seems to have been this which led him to make the circle of the moon -smaller than that of the stars.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f979'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r979'>979</a>. Diels pointed out that Leukippos’s explanation of thunder (πυρὸς -ἐναποληφθέντος νέφεσι παχυτάτοις ἔκπτωσιν ἰσχυρὰν βροντὴν ἀποτελεῖν -ἀποφαίνεται, Aet. iii. 3, 10) is quite different from that of Demokritos -(Βροντὴν ... ἐκ συγκρίματος ἀνωμάλου τὸ περιειληφὸς αὐτὸ νέφος πρὸς -τὴν κάτω φορὰν ἐκβιαζομένου, <i>ib.</i> 11). The explanation given by Leukippos -is derived from that of Anaximander, while Demokritos is influenced by -Anaxagoras. See Diels, 35 <cite>Philol.-Vers.</cite> 97, 7.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f980'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r980'>980</a>. Aet. iv. 9, 8, οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι φύσει τὰ <a id='corr402'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='27'>αἰσθητα</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_402'><ins class='correction' title='27'>αἰσθητα</ins></a></span>, Λεύκιππος δὲ Δημόκριτος -καὶ Ἀπολλώνιος νόμῳ. See Zeller, <cite>Arch.</cite> v. p. 444.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f981'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r981'>981</a>. Chap. IV. p. 200, <a href='#f443'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 443</ins></a>. The remarkable parallel quoted by Gomperz -(p. 321) from Galilei, to the effect that tastes, smells, and colours <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>non sieno -altro che puri nomi</i></span> should, therefore, have been cited to illustrate -Parmenides rather than Demokritos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f982'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r982'>982</a>. See p. 240, fr. <a href='#Em.8'>8</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f983'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r983'>983</a>. For these see Sext. <cite>Math.</cite> vii. 135 (R. P. 204).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f984'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r984'>984</a>. Sext. vii. 140, “ὄψις γὰρ ἀδήλων τὰ φαινόμενα,” ὥς φησιν Ἀναξαγόρας, -ὃν ἐπὶ τούτῳ Δημόκριτος ἐπαινεῖ.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f985'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r985'>985</a>. See Zeller, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Zu Leukippus”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> xv. p. 138). The doctrine is -attributed to him in Aet. iv. 13, 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 403); and Alexander, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Sensu</cite></span>, -pp. 24, 14 and 56, 10, also mentions his name in connexion with it. This -must come from Theophrastos.</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_405'>405</span> - <h2 class='c005'>CHAPTER X <br /> ECLECTICISM AND REACTION</h2> -</div> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>The “bankruptcy of science.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec184'></a>184. With Leukippos our story should properly come -to an end; for he had really answered the question -first asked by Thales. We have seen, however, that, -though his theory of matter was of a most original and -daring kind, he was not equally successful in his -attempt to construct a cosmology, and this seems to -have stood in the way of the recognition of the atomic -theory for what it really was. We have noted the -growing influence of medicine, and the consequent -substitution of an interest in detailed investigation for -the larger cosmological views of an earlier time, -and there are several treatises in the Hippokratean -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>corpus</i></span> which give us a clear idea of the interest which -now prevailed.<a id='r986' /><a href='#f986' class='c014'><sup>[986]</sup></a> Leukippos had shown that “the -doctrine of Melissos,”<a id='r987' /><a href='#f987' class='c014'><sup>[987]</sup></a> which seemed to make all -science impossible, was not the only conclusion that -could be drawn from the Eleatic premisses, and he had -gone on to give a cosmology which was substantially -of the old Ionic type. The result at first was simply -that all the old schools revived and had a short period -of renewed activity, while at the same time some new -<span class='pageno' id='Page_406'>406</span>schools arose which sought to accommodate the older -views to those of Leukippos, or to make them more -available for scientific purposes by combining them in -an eclectic fashion. None of these attempts had any -lasting importance or influence, and what we have to -consider in this chapter is really one of the periodical -“bankruptcies of science” which mark the close of one -chapter in its history and announce the beginning of a -new one.</p> - -<h3 id='X.1' class='c018'>I. <span class='sc'>Hippon of Samos</span></h3> - -<p class='c022'><a id='sec185'></a>185. Hippon of Samos or Kroton belonged to the -Italian school of medicine.<a id='r988' /><a href='#f988' class='c014'><sup>[988]</sup></a> We know very little -indeed of him except that he was a contemporary of -Perikles. From a scholiast on Aristophanes<a id='r989' /><a href='#f989' class='c014'><sup>[989]</sup></a> we learn -that Kratinos satirised him in his <cite>Panoptai</cite>; and Aristotle -mentions him in the enumeration of early philosophers -given in the First Book of the <cite>Metaphysics</cite>,<a id='r990' /><a href='#f990' class='c014'><sup>[990]</sup></a> though -only to say that the inferiority of his intellect deprives -him of all claim to be reckoned among them.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Moisture.</div> - -<p class='c002'>With regard to his views, the most precise statement -is that of Alexander, who doubtless follows Theophrastos. -It is to the effect that he held the primary -substance to be Moisture, without deciding whether it -was Water or Air.<a id='r991' /><a href='#f991' class='c014'><sup>[991]</sup></a> We have the authority of Aristotle<a id='r992' /><a href='#f992' class='c014'><sup>[992]</sup></a> -and Theophrastos, represented by Hippolytos,<a id='r993' /><a href='#f993' class='c014'><sup>[993]</sup></a> for -<span class='pageno' id='Page_407'>407</span>saying that this theory was supported by physiological -arguments of the kind common at the time. His other -views belong to the history of Medicine.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Till quite recently no fragment of Hippon was known -to exist, but a single one has now been recovered from -the Geneva Scholia on Homer.<a id='r994' /><a href='#f994' class='c014'><sup>[994]</sup></a> It is directed against -the old assumption that the “waters under the earth” -are an independent source of moisture, and runs thus:</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>The waters we drink are all from the sea; for if wells were -deeper than the sea, then it would not, doubtless, be from the -sea that we drink, for then the water would not be from the -sea, but from some other source. But as it is, the sea is -deeper than the waters, so all the waters that are above the -sea come from it. R. P. 219 b.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>We observe here the universal assumption that -water tends to rise from the earth, not to sink into it.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Along with Hippon, Idaios of Himera<a id='r995' /><a href='#f995' class='c014'><sup>[995]</sup></a> may just be -mentioned. We really know nothing of him except -that he held air to be the primary substance. The -fact that he was of Sicilian origin is, however, suggestive.</p> - -<h3 id='X.2' class='c018'>II. <span class='sc'>Diogenes of Apollonia</span></h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Date.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec186'></a>186. After discussing the three great representatives -of the Milesian school, Theophrastos went on to say:</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>And Diogenes of Apollonia, too, who was almost the latest -of those who gave themselves up to these studies, wrote most -of his work in an eclectic fashion, agreeing in some points with -Anaxagoras and in others with Leukippos. He, too, says that -the primary substance of the universe is Air infinite and eternal, -<span class='pageno' id='Page_408'>408</span>from which by condensation, rarefaction, and change of state, -the form of everything else arises. R. P. 206 a.<a id='r996' /><a href='#f996' class='c014'><sup>[996]</sup></a></p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>This passage shows that the Apolloniate was somewhat -later in date than the statement in Laertios -Diogenes<a id='r997' /><a href='#f997' class='c014'><sup>[997]</sup></a> that he was contemporary with Anaxagoras -would lead us to suppose, and the fact that he is -satirised in the <cite>Clouds</cite> of Aristophanes points in the -same direction.<a id='r998' /><a href='#f998' class='c014'><sup>[998]</sup></a> Of his life we know next to nothing. -He was the son of Apollothemis, and came from -Apollonia in Crete.<a id='r999' /><a href='#f999' class='c014'><sup>[999]</sup></a> The Ionic dialect in which he -wrote is no objection to this; it was the regular dialect -for cosmological works.<a id='r1000' /><a href='#f1000' class='c014'><sup>[1000]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>The fact that Diogenes was parodied in the <cite>Clouds</cite> -suggests that he had found his way to Athens; and we -have the excellent authority of Demetrios Phalereus<a id='r1001' /><a href='#f1001' class='c014'><sup>[1001]</sup></a> -for saying that the Athenians treated him in the usual -way. He excited so great dislike as nearly to imperil -his life.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Writings.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec187'></a>187. Simplicius affirms that Diogenes wrote several -works, though he allows that only one survived till his -own day, namely, the Περὶ φύσεως.<a id='r1002' /><a href='#f1002' class='c014'><sup>[1002]</sup></a> This statement is -<span class='pageno' id='Page_409'>409</span>based upon references in the surviving work itself, and -is not to be lightly rejected. In particular, it is very -credible that he wrote a tract <cite>Against the Sophists</cite>, that -is to say, the pluralist cosmologists of the day.<a id='r1003' /><a href='#f1003' class='c014'><sup>[1003]</sup></a> That -he wrote a <cite>Meteorology</cite> and a book called <cite>The Nature -of Man</cite> is also quite probable. This would be a -physiological or medical treatise, and perhaps the -famous fragment about the veins comes from it.<a id='r1004' /><a href='#f1004' class='c014'><sup>[1004]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>The Fragments.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec188'></a>188. The work of Diogenes seems to have been -preserved in the Academy; practically all the fairly -extensive fragments which we still have are derived -from Simplicius. I give them as they are arranged by -Diels:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>(1) In beginning any discourse, it seems to me that one -should make one’s starting-point something indisputable, and -one’s expression simple and dignified. R. P. 207.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='Di.2'></a>(2) My view is, to sum it all up, that all things are -differentiations of the same thing, and are the same thing. -And this is obvious; for, if the things which are now -in this world—earth, and water, and air and fire, and the -other things which we see existing in this world,—if any -one of these things, I say, were different from any other, -different, that is, by having a substance peculiar to itself; -and if it were not the same thing that is often changed and -differentiated, then things could not in any way mix with -one another, nor could they do one another good or harm. -Neither could a plant grow out of the earth, nor any animal -nor anything else come into being unless things were composed -in such a way as to be the same. But all these things -arise from the same thing; they are differentiated and take -different forms at different times, and return again to the -same thing. R. P. 208.</p> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_410'>410</span>(3) For it would not be possible for it to be divided as it -is without intelligence, so as to keep the measures of all things, -of winter and summer, of day and night, of rains and winds -and fair weather. And any one who cares to reflect will find -that everything else is disposed in the best possible manner. -R. P. 210.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(4) And, further, there are still the following great proofs. -Men and all other animals live upon air by breathing it, and -this is their soul and their intelligence, as will be clearly -shown in this work; while, when this is taken away, they die, -and their intelligence fails. R. P. 210.</p> - -<p class='c002'><a id='Di.5'></a>(5) And my view is, that that which has intelligence is -what men call air, and that all things have their course -steered by it, and that it has power over all things. For this -very thing I hold to be a god,<a id='r1005' /><a href='#f1005' class='c014'><sup>[1005]</sup></a> and to reach everywhere, and -to dispose everything, and to be in everything; and there is -not anything which does not partake in it. Yet no single -thing partakes in it just in the same way as another; but -there are many modes both of air and of intelligence. For it -undergoes many transformations, warmer and colder, drier -and moister, more stable and in swifter motion, and it has -many other differentiations in it, and an infinite number of -colours and savours. And the soul of all living things is the -same, namely, air warmer than that outside us and in which -we are, but much colder than that near the sun. And this -warmth is not alike in any two kinds of living creatures, nor, -for the matter of that, in any two men; but it does not differ -much, only so far as is compatible with their being alike. At -the same time, it is not possible for any of the things which -are differentiated to be exactly like one another till they all -once more become the same.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(6) Since, then, differentiation is multiform, living creatures -are multiform and many, and they are like one another neither -<span class='pageno' id='Page_411'>411</span>in appearance nor in intelligence, because of the multitude of -differentiations. At the same time, they all live, and see, and -hear by the same thing, and they all have their intelligence -from the same source. R. P. 211.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(7) And this itself is an eternal and undying body, but of -those things<a id='r1006' /><a href='#f1006' class='c014'><sup>[1006]</sup></a> some come into being and some pass away.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(8) But this, too, appears to me to be obvious, that it is -both great, and mighty, and eternal, and undying, and of -great knowledge. R. P. 209.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>That the chief interest of Diogenes was a physiological -one, is clear from his elaborate account of the -veins, preserved by Aristotle.<a id='r1007' /><a href='#f1007' class='c014'><sup>[1007]</sup></a> It is noticeable, too, -that one of his arguments for the underlying unity of -all substances is that without this it would be impossible -to understand how one thing could do good or harm -to another (fr. <a href='#Di.2'>2</a>). In fact, the writing of Diogenes is -essentially of the same character as a good deal of -the pseudo-Hippokratean literature, and there is much -to be said for the view that the writers of these curious -tracts made use of him very much as they did of -Anaxagoras and Herakleitos.<a id='r1008' /><a href='#f1008' class='c014'><sup>[1008]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Cosmology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec189'></a>189. Like Anaximenes, Diogenes regarded Air as -the primary substance; but we see from his arguments -that he lived at a time when other views had become -prevalent. He speaks clearly of the four Empedoklean -elements (fr. <a href='#Di.2'>2</a>), and he is careful to attribute to Air -<span class='pageno' id='Page_412'>412</span>the attributes of Nous as taught by Anaxagoras (fr. <a href='#An.4'>4</a>). -The doxographical tradition as to his cosmological -views is fairly preserved:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Diogenes of Apollonia makes air the element, and holds -that all things are in motion, and that there are innumerable -worlds. And he describes the origin of the world thus. -When the All moves and becomes rare in one place and dense -in another, where the dense met together it formed a mass, -and then the other things arose in the same way, the lightest -parts occupying the highest position and producing the sun. -[Plut.] <cite>Strom.</cite> fr. 12 (R. P. 215).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Nothing arises from what is not nor passes away into what -is not. The earth is round, poised in the middle, having -received its shape through the revolution proceeding from the -warm and its solidification from the cold. Diog. ix. 57 -(R. P. 215).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The heavenly bodies were like pumice-stone. He thinks -they are the breathing-holes of the world, and that they are -red-hot. Aet. ii. 13, 5 = Stob. i. 508 (R. P. 215).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The sun was like pumice-stone, and into it the rays from -the aether fix themselves. Aet. ii. 20, 10. The moon was a -pumice-like conflagration. <i>Ib.</i> ii. 25, 10.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Along with the visible heavenly bodies revolve invisible -stones, which for that very reason are nameless; but they -often fall and are extinguished on the earth like the stone star -which fell down flaming at Aigospotamos.<a id='r1009' /><a href='#f1009' class='c014'><sup>[1009]</sup></a> <i>Ib.</i> ii. 13, 9.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>We have here nothing more than the old Ionian -doctrine with a few additions from more recent sources. -Rarefaction and condensation still hold their place in -the explanation of the opposites, warm and cold, dry -and moist, stable and mobile (fr. <a href='#Di.5'>5</a>). The differentiations -into opposites which Air may undergo are, as -Anaxagoras had taught, infinite in number; but all -may be reduced to the primary opposition of rare and -<span class='pageno' id='Page_413'>413</span>dense. We may gather, too, from Censorinus<a id='r1010' /><a href='#f1010' class='c014'><sup>[1010]</sup></a> that -Diogenes did not, like Anaximenes, speak of earth and -water as arising from Air by condensation, but rather -of blood, flesh, and bones. In this he followed -Anaxagoras (<a href='#sec130'>§ 130</a>), as it was natural that he should. -That portion of Air, on the other hand, which was -rarefied became fiery, and produced the sun and -heavenly bodies. The circular motion of the world is -due to the intelligence of the Air, as is also the division -of all things into different forms of body and the -observance of the “measures” by these forms.<a id='r1011' /><a href='#f1011' class='c014'><sup>[1011]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>Like Anaximander (<a href='#sec20'>§ 20</a>), Diogenes regarded the -sea as the remainder of the original moist state, which -had been partially evaporated by the sun, so as to -separate out the remaining earth.<a id='r1012' /><a href='#f1012' class='c014'><sup>[1012]</sup></a> The earth itself is -round, that is to say, it is a disc: for the language of -the doxographers does not point to the spherical form.<a id='r1013' /><a href='#f1013' class='c014'><sup>[1013]</sup></a> -Its solidification by the cold is due to the fact that cold -is a form of condensation.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Diogenes did not hold with the earlier cosmologists -that the heavenly bodies were made of air or fire, nor -yet with Anaxagoras, that they were stones. They -were, he said, pumice-like, a view in which we may -trace the influence of Leukippos. They were earthy, -indeed, but not solid, and the celestial fire permeated -their pores. And this explains why we do not see -the dark bodies which, in common with Anaxagoras, -he held to revolve along with the stars. They really -are solid stones, and therefore cannot be penetrated -by the fire. It was one of these that fell into the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_414'>414</span>Aigospotamos. Like Anaxagoras, Diogenes affirmed -that the inclination of the earth happened subsequently -to the rise of animals.<a id='r1014' /><a href='#f1014' class='c014'><sup>[1014]</sup></a></p> - -<p class='c002'>We are prepared to find that Diogenes held the -doctrine of innumerable worlds; for it was the old -Milesian belief, and had just been revived by Anaxagoras -and Leukippos. He is mentioned with the rest -in the <cite>Placita</cite>; and if Simplicius classes him and -Anaximenes with Herakleitos as holding the Stoic -doctrine of successive formations and destructions of -a single world, he has probably been misled by the -“accommodators.”<a id='r1015' /><a href='#f1015' class='c014'><sup>[1015]</sup></a></p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Animals and plants.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec190'></a>190. Living creatures arose from the earth, doubtless -under the influence of heat. Their souls, of course, -were air, and their differences were due to the various -degrees in which it was rarefied or condensed (fr. <a href='#Di.5'>5</a>). -No special seat, such as the heart or the brain, was -assigned to the soul; it was simply the warm air -circulating with the blood in the veins.</p> - -<p class='c002'>The views of Diogenes as to generation, respiration, -and the blood, belong to the history of Medicine;<a id='r1016' /><a href='#f1016' class='c014'><sup>[1016]</sup></a> his -theory of sensation too, as it is described by Theophrastos,<a id='r1017' /><a href='#f1017' class='c014'><sup>[1017]</sup></a> -need only be mentioned in passing. Briefly -stated, it amounts to this, that all sensation is due to -the action of air upon the brain and other organs, -while pleasure is aeration of the blood. But the details -of the theory can only be studied properly in connexion -with the Hippokratean writings; for Diogenes does not -<span class='pageno' id='Page_415'>415</span>really represent the old cosmological tradition, but a -fresh development of reactionary philosophical views -combined with an entirely new enthusiasm for detailed -investigation and accumulation of facts.</p> - -<h3 id='X.3' class='c018'>III. <span class='sc'>Archelaos of Athens</span></h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'><a id='corr415.6'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='Anaxagorea'>Anaxagoreans</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_415.6'><ins class='correction' title='Anaxagorea'>Anaxagoreans</ins></a></span>.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec191'></a>191. The last of the early cosmologists was -Archelaos of Athens, who was a disciple of Anaxagoras.<a id='r1018' /><a href='#f1018' class='c014'><sup>[1018]</sup></a> -He is also said to have been the teacher of -Sokrates, a statement by no means so improbable as -is sometimes supposed.<a id='r1019' /><a href='#f1019' class='c014'><sup>[1019]</sup></a> There is no reason to doubt -the tradition that Archelaos succeeded Anaxagoras in -the school at Lampsakos.<a id='r1020' /><a href='#f1020' class='c014'><sup>[1020]</sup></a> We certainly hear of -Anaxagoreans,<a id='r1021' /><a href='#f1021' class='c014'><sup>[1021]</sup></a> though their fame was soon obscured -by the rise of the Sophists, as we call them.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Cosmology.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec192'></a>192. On the cosmology of Archelaos, Hippolytos<a id='r1022' /><a href='#f1022' class='c014'><sup>[1022]</sup></a> -writes as follows:—</p> - -<div class='quote'> - -<p class='c002'>Archelaos was by birth an Athenian, and the son of -Apollodoros. He spoke of the mixture of matter in a similar -way to Anaxagoras, and of the first principles likewise. He -held, however, that there was a certain mixture immanent -even in Nous. And he held that there were two efficient -causes which were separated off from one another, namely, -the warm and the cold. The former was in motion, the -latter at rest. When the water was liquefied it flowed to the -centre, and there being burnt up it turned to earth and air, -the latter of which was borne upwards, while the former took -up its position below. These, then, are the reasons why the -earth is at rest, and why it came into being. It lies in the -<span class='pageno' id='Page_416'>416</span>centre, being practically no appreciable part of the universe. -(But the air rules over all things),<a id='r1023' /><a href='#f1023' class='c014'><sup>[1023]</sup></a> being produced by the -burning of the fire, and from its original combustion comes -the substance of the heavenly bodies. Of these the sun is -the largest, and the moon second; the rest are of various -sizes. He says that the heavens were inclined, and that then -the sun made light upon the earth, made the air transparent, -and the earth dry; for it was originally a pond, being high at -the circumference and hollow in the centre. He adduces as -a proof of this hollowness that the sun does not rise and set -at the same time for all peoples, as it ought to do if the earth -were level. As to animals, he says that when the earth was -first being warmed in the lower part where the warm and the -cold were mingled together, many living creatures appeared, -and especially men, all having the same manner of life, and -deriving their sustenance from the slime; they did not live -long, and later on generation from one another began. And -men were distinguished from the rest, and set up leaders, and -laws, and arts, and cities, and so forth. And he says that -Nous is implanted in all animals alike; for each of the -animals, as well as man, makes use of Nous, but some -quicker and some slower.</p> - -</div> - -<p class='c002'>It is not necessary to say much with regard to this -theory, which in many respects contrasts unfavourably -with its predecessors. It is clear that, just as Diogenes -had tried to introduce certain Anaxagorean ideas into -the philosophy of Anaximenes, so Archelaos sought to -bring Anaxagoreanism nearer to the old Ionic views -by supplementing it with the opposition of warm and -cold, rare and dense, and by stripping Nous of that -simplicity which had marked it off from the other -“things” in his master’s system. It was probably for -this reason, too, that Nous was no longer regarded as -the maker of the world.<a id='r1024' /><a href='#f1024' class='c014'><sup>[1024]</sup></a> Leukippos had made such a -<span class='pageno' id='Page_417'>417</span>force unnecessary. It may be added that this twofold -relation of Archelaos to his predecessors makes it very -credible that, as Aetios tells us,<a id='r1025' /><a href='#f1025' class='c014'><sup>[1025]</sup></a> he believed in innumerable -worlds; both Anaxagoras and the older -Ionians upheld that doctrine.</p> - -<div class='sidenote'>Conclusion.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='sec193'></a>193. The cosmology of Archelaos, like that of -Diogenes, has all the characteristics of the age to -which it belonged—an age of reaction, eclecticism, -and investigation of detail.<a id='r1026' /><a href='#f1026' class='c014'><sup>[1026]</sup></a> Hippon of Samos and -Idaios of Himera represent nothing more than the -feeling that philosophy had run into a blind alley, -from which it could only escape by trying back. -The Herakleiteans at Ephesos, impenetrably wrapped -up as they were in their own system, did little but -exaggerate its paradoxes and develop its more fanciful -side.<a id='r1027' /><a href='#f1027' class='c014'><sup>[1027]</sup></a> It was not enough for Kratylos to say with -Herakleitos (fr. 84) that you cannot step twice into -the same river; you could not do so even once.<a id='r1028' /><a href='#f1028' class='c014'><sup>[1028]</sup></a> -But in nothing was the total bankruptcy of the early -cosmology so clearly shown as in the work of Gorgias, -entitled <cite>Substance or the Non-existent</cite>, in which an -absolute nihilism was set forth and based upon the -Eleatic dialectic.<a id='r1029' /><a href='#f1029' class='c014'><sup>[1029]</sup></a> The fact is that philosophy, so long -as it clung to its old presuppositions, had nothing more -to say; for the answer of Leukippos to the question of -<span class='pageno' id='Page_418'>418</span>Thales was really final. Fresh life must be given to -the speculative impulse by the raising of new problems, -those of knowledge and conduct, before any further -progress was possible; and this was done by the -“Sophists” and Sokrates. Then, in the hands of -Demokritos and Plato, philosophy took a new form, -and started on a fresh course.</p> - -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f986'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r986'>986</a>. Cf. what is said in Chap. IV. p. 167, <a href='#f383'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 383</ins></a>, of the Περὶ διαίτης. The -Περὶ ἀνθρώπου φύσιος and the Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰατρικῆς are invaluable -documents for the attitude of scientific men to cosmological theories at this -date.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f987'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r987'>987</a>. Cf. Chap. VIII. p. 379, <a href='#f919'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 919</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f988'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r988'>988</a>. Aristoxenos said he was a Samian (R. P. 219 a). In Menon’s <cite>Iatrika</cite> -he is called a Krotoniate, while others assign him to Rhegion or Metapontion. -This probably means that he was affiliated to the Pythagorean -medical school. The evidence of Aristoxenos is, in that case, all the more -valuable. Hippon is mentioned along with Melissos in Iamblichos’s -Catalogue of Pythagoreans (<cite>V. Pyth.</cite> 267).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f989'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r989'>989</a>. Schol. on <cite>Clouds</cite>, 94 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f990'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r990'>990</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Α, 3. 984 a 3 (R. P. 219 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f991'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r991'>991</a>. Alexander in <cite>Met.</cite> p. 26, 21 (R. P. 219).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f992'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r992'>992</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de An.</cite></span> Α, 2. 405 b 2 (R. P. 220).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f993'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r993'>993</a>. Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 16 (R. P. 221).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f994'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r994'>994</a>. <cite>Schol. Genav.</cite> p. 197, 19. Cf. Diels in <cite>Arch.</cite> iv. p. 653. The extract -comes from the Ὁμηρικά of Krates of Mallos.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f995'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r995'>995</a>. Sext. <cite>adv. Math.</cite> ix. 360.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f996'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r996'>996</a>. On this passage see Diels, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Leukippos und Diogenes von Apollonia”</span> -(<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Rhein. Mus.</cite></span> xlii. pp. 1 sqq.). Natorp’s view that the words are merely -those of Simplicius (<i>ib.</i> xli. pp. 349 sqq.) can hardly be maintained.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f997'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r997'>997</a>. Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 206). The statement of Antisthenes, the writer -of <cite>Successions</cite>, that he had “heard” Anaximenes is due to the usual -confusion. He was doubtless, like Anaxagoras, “an associate of the -philosophy of Anaximenes.” Cf. Chap. VI. <a href='#sec122'>§ 122</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f998'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r998'>998</a>. Aristoph. <cite>Clouds</cite>, 227 sqq., where Sokrates speaks of “mixing his -subtle thought with the kindred air,” and especially the words ἡ γῆ βίᾳ | -ἕλκει πρὸς αὑτὴν τὴν ἱκμάδα τῆς φροντίδος. For the ἱκμάς, see Beare, -p. 259. Cf. also Eur. <cite>Tro.</cite> 884, ὦ γῆς ὄχημα κἀπὶ γῆς ἕδραν ἔχων κ.τ.λ.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f999'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r999'>999</a>. Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 206).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1000'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1000'>1000</a>. Cf. Chap. VII. pp. <a href='#Page_327'>327</a> sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1001'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1001'>1001</a>. Diog. ix. 57, τοῦτόν φησιν ὁ Φαληρεὺς Δημήτριος ἐν τῇ Σωκράτους -ἀπολογίᾳ διὰ μέγαν φθόνον μικροῦ κινδυνεῦσαι Ἀθήνησιν. Diels follows -Volkmann in holding that this is a note on Anaxagoras which has been -inserted in the wrong place. I do not think this is necessary, though it is -certainly possible.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1002'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1002'>1002</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 151, 24 (R. P. 207 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1003'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1003'>1003</a>. Simplicius says Πρὸς φυσιολόγους, but he adds that Diogenes called -them σοφισταί, which is the older word. This is, so far, in favour of the -genuineness of the work.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1004'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1004'>1004</a>. Diels gives this as fr. 6 (<cite>Vors.</cite> p. 350). I have omitted it, as it really -belongs to the history of Medicine.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1005'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1005'>1005</a>. The MSS. of Simplicius have ἔθος, not θεός; but I adopt Usener’s -certain correction. It is confirmed by the statement of Theophrastos, that -the air within us is “a small portion of the god” (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Sens.</cite></span> 42); and by -Philodemos (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 536), where we read that Diogenes praises Homer, -τὸν ἀέρα γὰρ αὐτὸν Δία νομίζειν φησίν, ἐπειδὴ πᾶν εἰδέναι τὸν Δία λέγει -(cf. Cic. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Nat. D.</cite></span> i. 12, 29).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1006'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1006'>1006</a>. The MSS. of Simplicius have τῷ δέ, but surely the Aldine τῶν δέ is -right.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1007'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1007'>1007</a>. Arist. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Hist. An.</cite></span> Γ, 2. 511 b 30.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1008'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1008'>1008</a>. See Weygoldt, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Zu Diogenes von Apollonia”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> i. pp. 161 sqq.). -Hippokrates himself represented just the opposite tendency to that of those -writers. His great achievement was the separation of medicine from -philosophy, a separation most beneficial to both (Celsus, i. pr.). This is -why the Hippokratean corpus contains some works in which the “sophists” -are denounced and others in which their writings are pillaged. To the -latter class belong the Περὶ διαίτης and the Περὶ φυσῶν; to the former, -especially the Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰατρικῆς.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1009'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1009'>1009</a>. See Chap. VI. p. 292, <a href='#f657'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 657</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1010'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1010'>1010</a>. Censorinus, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de die natali</cite></span>, 6, 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 190).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1011'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1011'>1011</a>. On the “measures” see Chap. III. <a href='#sec72'>§ 72</a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1012'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1012'>1012</a>. Theophr. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>ap.</cite></span> Alex. in <cite>Meteor.</cite> p. 67, 1 (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 494).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1013'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1013'>1013</a>. Diog. ix. 57 (R. P. 215).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1014'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1014'>1014</a>. Aet. ii. 8, 1 (R. P. 215).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1015'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1015'>1015</a>. Simpl. <cite>Phys.</cite> p. 1121, 12. See Chap. I. p. 83, <a href='#f123'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 123</ins></a>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1016'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1016'>1016</a>. See Censorinus, quoted in <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 191.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1017'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1017'>1017</a>. Theophr. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Sens.</cite></span> 39 sqq. (R. P. 213, 214). For a full account, see -Beare, pp. 41 sqq., 105, 140, 169, 209, 258. As Prof. Beare remarks, -Diogenes “is one of the most interesting of the pre-Platonic psychologists” -(p. 258).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1018'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1018'>1018</a>. Diog. ii. 16 (R. P. 216).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1019'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1019'>1019</a>. See Chiapelli in <cite>Arch.</cite> iv. pp. 369 sqq.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1020'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1020'>1020</a>. Euseb. <cite>P. E.</cite> p. 504, c 3, ὁ δὲ Ἀρχέλαος ἐν Λαμψάκῳ διεδέξατο τὴν -σχολὴν τοῦ Ἀναξαγόρου.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1021'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1021'>1021</a>. Ἀναξαγόρειοι are mentioned by Plato (<cite>Crat.</cite> 409 b 6), and often by the -Aristotelian commentators.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1022'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1022'>1022</a>. Hipp. <cite>Ref.</cite> i. 9 (R. P. 218).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1023'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1023'>1023</a>. Inserting τὸν δ’ ἀέρα κρατεῖν τοῦ παντός, as suggested by Roeper.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1024'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1024'>1024</a>. Aet. i. 7, 4 = Stob. i. 56 (R. P. 217 a).</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1025'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1025'>1025</a>. Aet. ii. 1, 3.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1026'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1026'>1026</a>. Windelband, § 25. The period is well described by Fredrich, -<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Hippokratische Untersuchungen</cite></span>, pp. 130 sqq. It can only be treated fully -in connexion with the Sophists.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1027'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1027'>1027</a>. For an amusing picture of the Herakleiteans see Plato, <cite>Tht.</cite> 179 e. -The new interest in language, which the study of rhetoric had called into -life, took with them the form of fantastic and arbitrary etymologising, such -as is satirised in Plato’s <cite>Cratylus</cite>.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1028'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1028'>1028</a>. Arist. <cite>Met.</cite> Γ, 5. 1010 a 12. He refused even to speak, we are told, -and only moved his finger.</p> -</div> -<div class='footnote' id='f1029'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1029'>1029</a>. Sext. <cite>adv. Math.</cite> vii. 65 (R. P. 235); <cite>M.X.G.</cite> 979 a 13 (R. P. 236).</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_419'>419</span> - <h2 class='c005'>APPENDIX <br /> THE SOURCES</h2> -</div> - -<h3 class='c018'><i>A.</i>—PHILOSOPHERS</h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Plato.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.1'></a>1. It is not very often that Plato allows himself to dwell upon -the history of philosophy as it was before the rise of ethical -and epistemological inquiry; but when he does, his guidance -is simply invaluable. His artistic gift and his power of entering -into the thoughts of other men enabled him to describe -the views of early philosophers in a thoroughly objective -manner, and he never, except in a playful and ironical way, -sought to read unthought-of meanings into the words of his -predecessors. Of special value for our purpose are his contrast -between Empedokles and Herakleitos (<cite>Soph.</cite> 242 d), and -his account of the relation between Zeno and Parmenides -(<cite>Parm.</cite> 128 a).</p> - -<p class='c002'>See Zeller, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de">“Plato’s Mittheilungen über frühere und gleichzeitige -Philosophen”</span> (<cite>Arch.</cite> v. pp. 165 sqq.); and Index, <i>s.v.</i> -Plato.</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Aristotle.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.2'></a>2. As a rule, Aristotle’s statements about early philosophers -are less historical than Plato’s. Not that he failed to understand -the facts, but he nearly always discusses them from the -point of view of his own system. He is convinced that his -own philosophy accomplishes what all previous philosophers -had aimed at, and their systems are therefore regarded as -“lisping” attempts to formulate it (<cite>Met.</cite> Α, 10. 993 a 15). -It is also to be noted that Aristotle regards some systems in a -<span class='pageno' id='Page_420'>420</span>much more sympathetic way than others. He is distinctly -unfair to the Eleatics, for instance.</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is often forgotten that Aristotle derived much of his -information from Plato, and we must specially observe that -he more than once takes Plato’s irony too literally.</p> - -<p class='c002'>See Emminger, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Die Vorsokratischen Philosophen nach den -Berichten des Aristoteles</cite></span>, 1878. Index, <i>s.v.</i> Aristotle.</p> - -<hr class='c019' /> - -<div class='sidenote'>Stoics.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.3'></a>3. The Stoics, and especially Chrysippos, paid great -attention to early philosophy, but their way of regarding it -was simply an exaggeration of Aristotle’s. They did not content -themselves with criticising their predecessors from their -own point of view; they seem really to have believed that the -early poets and thinkers held views hardly distinguishable -from theirs. The word συνοικειοῦν, which Cicero renders by -<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>accommodare</i></span>, was used by Philodemos to denote this method -of interpretation,<a id='r1030' /><a href='#f1030' class='c014'><sup>[1030]</sup></a> which has had serious results upon our -tradition, especially in the case of Herakleitos (p. 157).</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Skeptics.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.4'></a>4. The same remarks apply <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>mutatis mutandis</i></span> to the -Skeptics. The interest of such a writer as Sextus Empiricus -in early philosophy is to show that skepticism went back to an -early date—as far as Xenophanes, in fact. But what he tells -us is often of value; for he frequently quotes early views as -to knowledge and sensation in support of his thesis.</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Neoplatonists.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.5'></a>5. Under this head we have chiefly to consider the commentators -on Aristotle in so far as they are independent of the -Theophrastean tradition. Their chief characteristic is what -Simplicius calls εὐγνωμοσύνη, that is, a liberal spirit of interpretation, -which makes all early philosophers agree with one -another in upholding the doctrine of a Sensible and an -<span class='pageno' id='Page_421'>421</span>Intelligible World. It is, however, to Simplicius more -than any one else that we owe the preservation of the fragments. -He had, of course, the library of the Academy at -his disposal.</p> - -<h3 class='c018'><i>B.</i>—DOXOGRAPHERS</h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>The <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Doxographi graeci</cite></span>.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.6'></a>6. The <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Doxographi graeci</cite></span> of Professor Hermann Diels -(1879) threw an entirely new light upon the filiation of the -later sources; and we can only estimate justly the value of -statements derived from these if we bear constantly in mind -the results of his investigation. Here it will only be possible -to give an outline which may help the reader to find his way -in the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Doxographi graeci</cite></span> itself.</p> - -<hr class='c019' /> - -<div class='sidenote'>The “Opinions” of Theophrastos</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.7'></a>7. By the term <em>doxographers</em> we understand all those -writers who relate the opinions of the Greek philosophers, -and who derive their material, directly or indirectly, from the -great work of Theophrastos, Φυσικῶν δοξῶν ιηʹ (Diog. v. 46). -Of this work, one considerable chapter, that entitled Περὶ -αἰσθήσεων, has been preserved (<cite>Dox.</cite> pp. 499-527). And -Usener, following Brandis, further showed that there were -important fragments of it contained in the commentary of -Simplicius (sixth cent. <span class='fss'>A.D.</span>) on the First Book of Aristotle’s -Φυσικὴ ἀκρόασις (Usener, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Analecta Theophrastea</cite></span>, pp. 25 sqq.). -These extracts Simplicius seems to have borrowed in turn -from Alexander of Aphrodisias (<i>c.</i> 200 <span class='fss'>A.D.</span>); cf. <cite>Dox.</cite> p. 112 -sqq. We thus possess a very considerable portion of the -First Book, which dealt with the ἀρχαί as well as practically -the whole of the last Book.</p> - -<p class='c002'>From these remains it clearly appears that the method of -Theophrastos was to discuss in separate books the leading -topics which had engaged the attention of philosophers from -Thales to Plato. The chronological order was not observed; -the philosophers were grouped according to the affinity of their -doctrine, the differences between those who appeared to agree -most closely being carefully noted. The First Book, however, -was in some degree exceptional; for in it the order was that of -the successive schools, and short historical and chronological -notices were inserted.</p> - -<hr class='c019' /> - -<div class='sidenote'>Doxographers.</div> - -<p class='c002'><span class='pageno' id='Page_422'>422</span><a id='app1.8'></a>8. A work of this kind was, of course, a godsend to the -epitomators and compilers of handbooks, who flourished more -and more as the Greek genius declined. These either -followed Theophrastos in arranging the subject-matter under -heads, or else they broke up his work, and rearranged his -statements under the names of the various philosophers to -whom they applied. This latter class form the natural -transition between the doxographers proper and the biographers, -so I have ventured to distinguish them by the name of -<em>biographical doxographers</em>.</p> - -<h4 class='c026'>I. <span class='sc'>Doxographers Proper</span></h4> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>The <cite>Placita</cite> and Stobaios.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.9'></a>9. These are now represented by two works, viz. the -<cite>Placita Philosophorum</cite>, included among the writings ascribed -to Plutarch, and the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Eclogae Physicae</cite></span> of John Stobaios (<i>c.</i> 470 -<span class='fss'>A.D.</span>). The latter originally formed one work with the <cite>Florilegium</cite> -of the same author, and includes a transcript of some -epitome substantially identical with the pseudo-Plutarchean -<cite>Placita</cite>. It is, however, demonstrable that neither the <cite>Placita</cite> -nor the doxography of the <cite>Eclogae</cite> is the original of the -other. The latter is usually the fuller of the two, and yet -the former must be earlier; for it was used by Athenagoras -for his defence of the Christians in 177 <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 4). It -was also the source of the notices in Eusebios and Cyril, and -of the <cite>History of Philosophy</cite> ascribed to Galen. From these -writers many important corrections of the text have been -derived (<cite>Dox.</cite> pp. 5 sqq.).</p> - -<p class='c002'>Another writer who made use of the <cite>Placita</cite> is Achilles -(<em>not</em> Achilles Tatius). Extracts from his Εἰσαγωγή to the -<cite>Phaenomena</cite> of Aratos are included in the <cite>Uranologion</cite> of -Petavius, pp. 121-164. His date is uncertain, but probably -he belongs to the third century <span class='fss'>A.D.</span> (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 18).</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Aetios.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.10'></a>10. What, then, was the common source of the <cite>Placita</cite> and -the <cite>Eclogae</cite>? Diels has shown that Theodoret (<i>c.</i> 445 <span class='fss'>A.D.</span>) -had access to it; for in some cases he gives a fuller form of -statements made in these two works. Not only so, but he -also names that source; for he refers us (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gr. aff. cur.</cite></span> iv. 31) -<span class='pageno' id='Page_423'>423</span>to Ἀετίου τὴν περὶ ἀρεσκόντων συναγωγήν. Diels has accordingly -printed the <cite>Placita</cite> in parallel columns with the relevant -parts of the <cite>Eclogae</cite>, under the title of <cite>Aetii Placita</cite>. The -quotations from “Plutarch” by later writers, and the extracts -of Theodoret from Aetios, are also given at the foot of each -page.</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>The <cite>Vetusta Placita</cite>.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.11'></a>11. Diels has shown further, however, that Aetios did not -draw directly from Theophrastos, but from an intermediate -epitome which he calls the <cite>Vetusta Placita</cite>, traces of which -may be found in Cicero (<i>infra</i>, § 12), and in Censorinus (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>De -die natali</cite></span>), who follows Varro. The <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Vetusta Placita</cite></span> were -composed in the school of Poseidonios, and Diels now calls -them the Poseidonian Ἀρέσκοντα (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Über das phys. System des -Straton</cite></span>, p. 2). There are also traces of them in the “Homeric -Allegorists.”</p> - -<p class='c002'>It is quite possible, by discounting the somewhat unintelligent -additions which Aetios made from Epicurean and -other sources, to form a pretty accurate table of the contents -of the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Vetusta Placita</cite></span> (<cite>Dox.</cite> pp. 181 sqq.), and this gives -us a fair idea of the arrangement of the original work by -Theophrastos.</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Cicero.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.12'></a>12. So far as what he tells us of the earliest Greek philosophy -goes, Cicero must be classed with the doxographers, -and not with the philosophers; for he gives us nothing but -extracts at second or third hand from the work of Theophrastos. -Two passages in his writings fall to be considered under this -head, namely, “Lucullus” (<cite>Acad.</cite> ii.), 118, and <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>De natura -Deorum</cite></span>, i. 25-41.</p> - -<p class='c002'>(<i>a</i>) <i>Doxography of the “Lucullus.”</i>—This contains a meagre -and inaccurately-rendered summary of the various opinions -held by philosophers with regard to the ἀρχή (<cite>Dox.</cite> -pp. 119 sqq.), and would be quite useless if it did not in one -case enable us to verify the exact words of Theophrastos -(Chap. I. p. 52, <a href='#f93'><i>n.</i> 2</a>). The doxography has come through -the hands of Kleitomachos, who succeeded Karneades in the -headship of the Academy (129 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>).</p> - -<p class='c002'>(<i>b</i>) <i>Doxography of the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“De natura Deorum.”</span></i>—A fresh light -was thrown upon this important passage by the discovery at -<span class='pageno' id='Page_424'>424</span>Herculaneum of a roll containing fragments of an Epicurean -treatise, so like it as to be at once regarded as its original. -This treatise was at first ascribed to Phaidros, on the ground -of the reference in <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Epp. ad Att.</cite></span> xiii. 39. 2; but the real title, -Φιλοδήμου περὶ εὐσεβείας, was afterwards restored (<cite>Dox.</cite> p. 530). -Diels, however, has shown (<cite>Dox.</cite> pp. 122 sqq.) that there is -much to be said for the view that Cicero did not copy -Philodemos, but that both drew from a common source (no -doubt Phaidros, Περὶ θεῶν) which itself went back to a Stoic -epitome of Theophrastos. The passage of Cicero and the -relevant fragments of Philodemos are edited in parallel -columns by Diels (<cite>Dox.</cite> pp. 531 sqq.).</p> - -<h4 class='c026'>II. <span class='sc'>Biographical Doxographers</span></h4> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Hippolytos.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.13'></a>13. Of the “biographical doxographies,” the most important -is Book I. of the <cite>Refutation of all Heresies</cite> by Hippolytos. -This had long been known as the <cite>Philosophoumena</cite> of Origen; -but the discovery of the remaining books, which were first -published at Oxford in 1854, showed finally that it could not -belong to him. It is drawn mainly from some good epitome -of Theophrastos, in which the matter was already rearranged -under the names of the various philosophers. We must note, -however, that the sections dealing with Thales, Pythagoras, -Herakleitos, and Empedokles come from an inferior source, -some merely biographical compendium full of apocryphal -anecdotes and doubtful statements.</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>The <i>Stromateis</i>.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.14'></a>14. The fragments of the pseudo-Plutarchean <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Stromateis</cite></span>, -quoted by Eusebios in his <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Praeparatio Evangelica</cite></span>, come from -a source similar to that of the best portions of the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Philosophoumena</cite></span>. -So far as we can judge, they differ chiefly in two -points. In the first place, they are mostly taken from the -earliest sections of the work, and therefore most of them deal -with the primary substance, the heavenly bodies and the earth. -In the second place, the language is a much less faithful -transcript of the original.</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>“Diogenes Laertios.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.15'></a>15. The scrap-book which goes by the name of Diogenes -Laertios, or Laertios Diogenes (cf. Usener, <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Epicurea</cite></span>, pp. 1 sqq.), -<span class='pageno' id='Page_425'>425</span>contains large fragments of two distinct doxographies. One -is of the merely biographical, anecdotic, and apophthegmatic -kind used by Hippolytos in his first four chapters; the -other is of a better class, more like the source of Hippolytos’ -remaining chapters. An attempt is made to disguise this -“contamination” by referring to the first doxography as a -“summary” (κεφαλαιωδής) account, while the second is called -“particular” (ἐπὶ μέρους).</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Patristic doxographies.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.16'></a>16. Short doxographical summaries are to be found in -Eusebios (<cite>P. E.</cite> x., xiv., xv.), Theodoret (<span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Gr. aff. cur.</cite></span> ii. 9-11), -Irenæus (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>C. haer.</cite></span> ii. 14), Arnobius (<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Adv. nat.</cite></span> ii. 9), Augustine -(<span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Civ. Dei</cite></span>, viii. 2). These depend mainly upon the writers of -“Successions,” whom we shall have to consider in the next -section.</p> - -<h3 class='c018'><i>C.</i>—BIOGRAPHERS</h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Successions.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.17'></a>17. The first to write a work entitled <cite>Successions of the -Philosophers</cite> was Sotion (Diog. ii. 12; R. P. 4 a), about -200 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> The arrangement of his work is explained in <cite>Dox.</cite> -p. 147. It was epitomised by Herakleides Lembos. Other -writers of Διαδοχαί were Antisthenes, Sosikrates, and Alexander. -All these compositions were accompanied by a very meagre -doxography, and made interesting by the addition of unauthentic -apophthegms and apocryphal anecdotes.</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Hermippos.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.18'></a>18. The peripatetic Hermippos of Smyrna, known as -Καλλιμάχειος (<i>c.</i> 200 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>), wrote several biographical works -which are frequently quoted. The biographical details are -very untrustworthy indeed; but sometimes bibliographical -information is added, which doubtless rests upon the Πίνακες -of Kallimachos.</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Satyros.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.19'></a>19. Another peripatetic, Satyros, the pupil of Aristarchos, -wrote (<i>c.</i> 160 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>) <cite>Lives of Famous Men</cite>. The same remarks -apply to him as to Hermippos. His work was epitomised by -Herakleides Lembos.</p> - -<div class='c013'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>“Diogenes Laertios.”</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.20'></a>20. The work which goes by the name of Laertios -Diogenes is, in its biographical parts, a mere patchwork of all -<span class='pageno' id='Page_426'>426</span>earlier learning. It has not been digested or composed by -any single mind at all. It is little more than a collection -of extracts made at haphazard, possibly by more than one -successive possessor of the MS. But, of course, it contains -much that is of the greatest value.</p> - -<h3 class='c018'><i>D.</i>—CHRONOLOGISTS</h3> - -<div class='c001'></div> -<div class='sidenote'>Eratosthenes and Apollodoros.</div> - -<p class='c002'><a id='app1.21'></a>21. The founder of ancient chronology was Eratosthenes -of Kyrene (275-194 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>); but his work was soon supplanted -by the metrical version of Apollodoros (<i>c.</i> 140 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>), from -which most of our information as to the dates of early -philosophers is derived. See Diels’ paper on the Χρονικά of -Apollodoros in <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Rhein. Mus.</cite></span> xxxi.; and Jacoby, <span lang="de" xml:lang="de"><cite>Apollodors -Chronik</cite></span> (1902).</p> - -<p class='c002'>The method adopted is as follows:—If the date of some -striking event in a philosopher’s life is known, that is taken as -his <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span> (ἀκμή), and he is assumed to have been forty -years old at that date. In default of this, some historical era -is taken as the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>floruit</i></span>. Of these the chief are the eclipse of -Thales 586/5 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, the taking of Sardeis in 546/5 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, the -accession of Polykrates in 532/1 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span>, and the foundation of -Thourioi in 444/3 <span class='fss'>B.C.</span> Further details will easily be found -by reference to the Index, <i>s.v.</i> Apollodoros.</p> -<hr class='c017' /> -<div class='footnote' id='f1030'> -<p class='c002'><a href='#r1030'>1030</a>. Cf. Cic. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>De nat. D.</cite></span> i. 15, 41: <span lang="la" xml:lang="la">“Et haec quidem (Chrysippus) in primo -libro de natura deorum, in secundo autem vult Orphei, Musaei, Hesiodi -Homerique fabellas accommodare ad ea quae ipse primo libro de deis -immortalibus dixerat, ut etiam veterrimi poetae, qui haec ne suspicati -quidem sunt, Stoici fuisse videantur.”</span> Cf. Philod. <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de piet. fr.</cite></span> c. 13, ἐν δὲ -τῷ δευτέρῳ τά τε εἰς Ὀρφέα καὶ Μουσαῖον ἀναφερόμενα καὶ τὰ παρ’ -Ὁμήρῳ καὶ Ἡσιόδῳ καὶ Εὐριπίδῃ καὶ ποιηταῖς ἄλλοις, ὡς καὶ Κλεάνθης, -πειρᾶται συνοικειοῦν ταῖς δόξαις αὐτῶν.</p> -</div> -<hr class='c017' /> - -<div class='chapter'> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_427'>427</span> - <h2 class='c005'>INDEXES</h2> -</div> - -<h3 class='c018'>I. ENGLISH</h3> - -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Aahmes, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Abaris, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, 97 <a href='#f205'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 205</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Abdera, school of, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Abstinence, Orphic and Pythagorean, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a> sq., <a href='#Page_104'>104</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>Empedoklean, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Academy, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Achilles and the Tortoise, <a href='#Page_367'>367</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Aether. <i>See</i> <a href='#AITHER'>αἰθήρ</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Aetios, App. <a href='#app1.10'>§ 10</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Aigospotamos, meteoric stone of, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>, <a href='#Page_413'>413</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'><a id='AIR'></a>Air, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a>, <a href='#Page_78'>78</a>, 79 <a href='#f154'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 154</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_411'>411</a> sq. See <a href='#AER'>ἀήρ</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Akousmata, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a> sq., <a href='#Page_328'>328</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Akousmatics, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Akragas, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Akron, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Alexander Aetolus, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Alexander Aphrodisiensis, <a href='#Page_139'>139</a>, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Alkidamas, 229 <a href='#f504'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 504</ins></a>, <a href='#f512'>231</a> <i>n.</i> <ins class='correction' title='5'>512</ins>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, 297 <a href='#f675'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 675</ins></a>, 321 <a href='#f739'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 739</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Alkmaion, 123 <a href='#f263'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 263</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a> sq., <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a>, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Amasis, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Ameinias, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>and Perikles, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>and Euripides, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>;</li> - <li>relation to Ionic school, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>;</li> - <li>and Zeno, <a href='#Page_362'>362</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Anaxagoreans, 35 <a href='#f50'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 50</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_415'>415</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Anaximander, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Anaximenes, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>School of, <a href='#Page_83'>83</a>, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, 408 <a href='#f997'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 997</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Androkydes, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Andron of Ephesos, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='ANIMALS'></a>Animals, Anaximander, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_279'>279</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>Diogenes of Apollonia, <a href='#Page_414'>414</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Antichthon, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'><span class='pageno' id='Page_428'>428</span>Antonius Diogenes, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Apollo Hyperboreios, 93 <a href='#f189'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 189</ins></a>, 97 <a href='#f205'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 205</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Apollodoros, App. <a href='#app1.21'>§ 21</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, 94 <a href='#f192'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 192</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a>, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a> sq., <a href='#Page_228'>228</a> sq., <a href='#Page_290'>290</a> sq., <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>, <a href='#Page_370'>370</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Apollonios of Tyana, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Apophthegms, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Archelaos, <a href='#Page_415'>415</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Archippos, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Archytas, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Aristarchos of Samos, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Aristeas of Prokonnesos, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a>, 97 <a href='#f205'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 205</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Aristophanes, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, 296 <a href='#f669'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 669</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>, <a href='#Page_408'>408</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Aristotle, App. <a href='#app1.2'>§ 2</a>; - <ul> - <li>on Egypt, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>;</li> - <li>on Thales, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>;</li> - <li>on Anaximander, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>on Pythagoras, 93 <a href='#f189'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 189</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a>, 107 <a href='#f226'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 226</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a> sq., <a href='#Page_139'>139</a> sq.;</li> - <li>on Herakleitos, 160 <a href='#f373'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 373</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a>;</li> - <li>on Parmenides, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>, <a href='#Page_203'>203</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a>, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>;</li> - <li>on Alkmaion, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>;</li> - <li>on Empedokles, 177 <a href='#f401'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 401</ins></a>, 228 <a href='#f502'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 502</ins></a>, 231 <a href='#f511'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 511</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>, 253 <a href='#f565'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 565</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>, <a href='#Page_268'>268</a>, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#Page_271'>271</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, 274 <a href='#f606'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 606</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_280'>280</a>, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>, 397 <a href='#f962'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 962</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Anaxagoras, 263 <a href='#f582'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 582</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_303'>303</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a>, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a>;</li> - <li>on the Pythagoreans, 100 <a href='#f208'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 208</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a>, 111 <a href='#f232'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 232</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_119'>119</a>, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_353'>353</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>on Zeno, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>, <a href='#Page_365'>365</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>on Melissos, <a href='#Page_374'>374</a> sq., <a href='#Page_377'>377</a>, <a href='#Page_378'>378</a>;</li> - <li>on Leukippos, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a>, <a href='#Page_385'>385</a> sq., <a href='#Page_387'>387</a>, 397 <a href='#f962'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 962</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Hippon, <a href='#f85'>49</a> <i>n.</i> <ins class='correction' title='2'>85</ins>, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a>;</li> - <li>on the <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>galeus levis</i></span>, 74 <a href='#f141'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 141</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on the theoretic life, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>;</li> - <li>on the mysteries, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>[Aristotle] <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Mundo</cite></span>, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a></li> - <li class='c027'>[Aristotle] <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>de Plantis</cite></span>, 279 <a href='#f618'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 618</ins></a>, 298 <a href='#f677'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 677</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Aristoxenos on Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, 94 <a href='#f191'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 191</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, 96 <a href='#f201'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 201</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_3'>3</a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a> sq., <a href='#Page_102'>102</a>, 109 <a href='#f231'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 231</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>on the Pythagoreans, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_334'>334</a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a>;</li> - <li><span class='pageno' id='Page_429'>429</span>Πυθαγορικαὶ ἀποφάσεις, 100 <a href='#f209'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 209</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>;</li> - <li>on Hippon, 406 <a href='#f988'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 988</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Plato, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a> sqq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Arithmetic, Egyptian, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>, 111 <a href='#f233'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 233</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>Pythagorean, <a href='#Page_109'>109</a> sq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Arithmetical symbolism, <a href='#Page_111'>111</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Astronomy, Babylonian and Greek, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a> sqq. - <ul> - <li><i>See</i> Heavenly bodies, Sun, Moon, Planets, Stars, Earth, Eclipses, Geocentric and Heliocentric hypothesis</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Atheism, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a>, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Athens, Parmenides and Zeno at, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a>; - <ul> - <li>Anaxagoras at, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Atomism. <i>See</i> <a href='#LEUKIPPOS'>Leukippos</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Atoms, <a href='#Page_387'>387</a> sqq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Babylonian language, 21 <a href='#f29'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 29</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>astronomy, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>eclipse cycle, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>;</li> - <li>μαθηματικοί, 350 <a href='#f834'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 834</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Beans, <a href='#Page_102'>102</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Biology. <i>See</i> <a href='#ANIMALS'>Animals</a>, <a href='#PLANTS'>Plants</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Blood, Empedokles, <a href='#Page_286'>286</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a>; - <ul> - <li>Diogenes of Apollonia, <a href='#Page_414'>414</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Brain, Alkmaion, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>; - <ul> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>;</li> - <li>Sicilian school of medicine, 288 <a href='#f645'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 645</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Breath. <i>See</i> <a href='#RESPIRATION'>Respiration</a>. - <ul> - <li>Breath of the World, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a></li> - </ul> - </li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Cave, Orphic, 257 <a href='#f571'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 571</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Chaos, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>, 9 <a href='#f7'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 7</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Chronos, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Cicero, App. <a href='#app1.12'>§ 12</a>; - <ul> - <li>on Thales, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>;</li> - <li>on Anaximander, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>;</li> - <li>on Anaximenes, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>;</li> - <li>on Parmenides, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, 221 <a href='#f482'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 482</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Atomism, 393 <a href='#f953'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 953</ins></a>, 394 <a href='#f956'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 956</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Clement of Alexandria, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Comic poets on Pythagoreans, 103 <a href='#f218'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 218</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Condensation. <i>See</i> <a href='#RAREFACTION'>Rarefaction</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Conflagration. <i>See</i> <a href='#EKPYROSIS'>ἐκπύρωσις</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Continuity, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Copernicus, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Corporealism, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a> sq., <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a>, <a href='#Page_357'>357</a>, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Cosmogonies, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'><a id='CROESUS'></a>Croesus, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a>, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Çulvasūtras, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Damasias, 43 <a href='#f68'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 68</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Damaskios, 9 <a href='#f10'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 10</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Darkness, <a href='#Page_79'>79</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_173'>173</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Death, Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_171'>171</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>Parmenides, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>;</li> - <li>Alkmaion, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>;</li> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Dekad, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Demetrios Phalereus, <a href='#Page_290'>290</a>, <a href='#Page_408'>408</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Demokritos, 2 <a href='#f1'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 1</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>date, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>;</li> - <li>on Egyptian mathematics, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>;</li> - <li><span class='pageno' id='Page_430'>430</span>on Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>;</li> - <li>primitive astronomy of, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_392'>392</a>;</li> - <li>and Leukippos, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Diagonal and Square, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Dialectic, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Dikaiarchos on Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, 96 <a href='#f202'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 202</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_100'>100</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Diogenes of Apollonia, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>, <a href='#Page_407'>407</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'><a id='DIVISIBILITY'></a>Divisibility, <a href='#Page_304'>304</a>, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>, <a href='#Page_362'>362</a>, <a href='#Page_365'>365</a>, <a href='#Page_376'>376</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Dodecahedron, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Doric dialect, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a>, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a> sq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><a id='EARTH'></a>Earth, a sphere, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>; - <ul> - <li>Thales, <a href='#Page_47'>47</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>Anaximander, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, <a href='#Page_72'>72</a>;</li> - <li>Anaximenes, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>, 83 <a href='#f167'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 167</ins></a>;</li> - <li>Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>;</li> - <li>Pythagoreans, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>Leukippos, <a href='#Page_401'>401</a>;</li> - <li>Diogenes of Apollonia, <a href='#Page_413'>413</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Echekrates, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Eclipses, Thales, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>Anaximander, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a>;</li> - <li>Anaximenes, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>;</li> - <li>Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_164'>164</a>;</li> - <li>Alkmaion, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a>;</li> - <li>Pythagoreans, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Leukippos, <a href='#Page_401'>401</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Ecliptic. <i>See</i> <a href='#OBLIQUITY'>Obliquity</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Effluences. <i>See</i> <a href='#APORROAI'>ἀπορροαί</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Egypt, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>; - <ul> - <li>Thales in Egypt, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a>;</li> - <li>Pythagoras and Egypt, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a> sq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Egyptian arithmetic, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>geometry, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a> sq., <a href='#Page_44'>44</a> sq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Ekphantos, 338 <a href='#f794'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 794</ins></a>, 387 <a href='#f939'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 939</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Elea, era of, 125 <a href='#f270'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 270</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_127'>127</a>, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Eleatics (<i>see</i> <a href='#PARMENIDES'>Parmenides</a>, <a href='#ZENO'>Zeno</a>, <a href='#MELISSOS'>Melissos</a>), 35 <a href='#f49'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 49</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>Leukippos and, <a href='#Page_382'>382</a> sqq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Elements (<i>see</i> <a href='#STOICHEIA'>στοιχεῖα</a>, <a href='#ROOTS'>Roots</a>, <a href='#SEEDS'>Seeds</a>, <a href='#IDEA'>ἰδέα</a>, <a href='#EIDOS'>εἶδος</a>, <a href='#MORFE'>μορφή</a>), 56 <a href='#f103'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 103</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a> sqq., 265 <a href='#f586'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 586</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_339'>339</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Eleusinia, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Embryology, Parmenides, 203 <a href='#f448'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 448</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>relation to Leukippos, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a>, <a href='#Page_392'>392</a>;</li> - <li>on Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a>, 246 <a href='#f555'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 555</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>, 259 <a href='#f577'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 577</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Parmenides, <a href='#Page_239'>239</a>, <a href='#Page_261'>261</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Ephesos, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Epicurus and Leukippos, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a> sq., 388 <a href='#f940'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 940</ins></a>, 391 <a href='#f949'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 949</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_394'>394</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Epimenides, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='EQUINOXES'></a>Equinoxes, precession of, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, 347 <a href='#f824'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 824</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Eratosthenes, App. <a href='#app1.21'>§ 21</a>, 228 <a href='#f502'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 502</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='EROS'></a>Eros, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Euclid, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Eudemos on Thales, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>on Pythagoras, 115 <a href='#f241'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 241</ins></a>, 116 <a href='#f243'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 243</ins></a>;</li> - <li><span class='pageno' id='Page_431'>431</span>on Parmenides, 203 <a href='#f449'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 449</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Zeno, <a href='#Page_363'>363</a>, 366 <a href='#f889'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 889</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on the term στοιχεῖον, 263 <a href='#f580'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 580</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'><a id='EUDOXOS'></a>Eudoxos, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Eukleides of Megara, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Euripides (fr. inc. 910), 12 <a href='#f14'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 14</ins></a>, 14 <a href='#f18'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 18</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>and Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a> sq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Eurytos, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a> sq., <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Eusebios, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Euthymenes, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Even and Odd, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Evolution, Anaximander, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_281'>281</a>;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Examyes, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Experiment, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a> sq., <a href='#Page_274'>274</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Figures, numerical, <a href='#Page_110'>110</a> sq., <a href='#Page_337'>337</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Fire, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a> sq., <a href='#Page_215'>215</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Fire, central, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Forgeries, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, 113 <a href='#f235'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 235</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Fossils, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Galen, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a></li> - <li class='c027'><span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><i>Galeus levis</i></span>, 74 <a href='#f141'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 141</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Geocentric hypothesis, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, <a href='#Page_123'>123</a>, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Geometry, Egyptian, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>of Thales, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a> sq.;</li> - <li>of Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a> sq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Glaukos of Rhegion, 228 <a href='#f503'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 503</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Gnomon (the instrument), 31 <a href='#f4'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 4</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Gnomon (in geometry and arithmetic), 114 <a href='#f238'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 238</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='GODS'></a>Gods, Thales, <a href='#Page_50'>50</a>; - <ul> - <li>Anaximander, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>;</li> - <li>Anaximenes, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>;</li> - <li>Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_264'>264</a>, <a href='#Page_272'>272</a>, <a href='#Page_288'>288</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Diogenes of Apollonia, 410 <a href='#f1005'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 1005</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Gorgias, 229 <a href='#f504'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 504</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_231'>231</a>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>, 256 <a href='#f569'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 569</ins></a>, 287 <a href='#f642'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 642</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_417'>417</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='GREATYEAR'></a>Great Year, <a href='#Page_25'>25</a>, <a href='#Page_175'>175</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Harmonics, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='HARMONY'></a>“Harmony of the Spheres,” <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_351'>351</a>. - <ul> - <li><i>See</i> <a href='#HARMONIA'>ἁρμονία</a> and <a href='#SOUL'>Soul</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Harpedonapts, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Hearing, Empedokles, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>; - <ul> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Heart, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, 288 <a href='#f645'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 645</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Heavenly bodies, Anaximander, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>Anaximenes, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>, <a href='#Page_81'>81</a>;</li> - <li>Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_133'>133</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>Parmenides, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>;</li> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li> - <li>Leukippos, <a href='#Page_401'>401</a>;</li> - <li>Diogenes of Apollonia, <a href='#Page_413'>413</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Hekataios, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Heliocentric hypothesis, <a href='#Page_27'>27</a>, 347 <a href='#f825'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 825</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_348'>348</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'><span class='pageno' id='Page_432'>432</span>Herakleides of Pontos, on Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_104'>104</a>, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>, 321 <a href='#f739'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 739</ins></a>, 387 <a href='#f939'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 939</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>on Empedokles, 228 <a href='#f502'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 502</ins></a>, <a href='#f503'>3</a>, 233 <a href='#f520'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 520</ins></a>, 236 <a href='#f532'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 532</ins></a>;</li> - <li>heliocentric hypothesis of, <a href='#Page_349'>349</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Herakleiteans, 35 <a href='#f48'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 48</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_417'>417</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>on Homer, <a href='#Page_182'>182</a>, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a>;</li> - <li>on Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a>, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>;</li> - <li>on Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Hermodoros, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Herodotos, on Homer and Hesiod, <a href='#Page_8'>8</a>; - <ul> - <li>on Egyptian influence, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>;</li> - <li>on geometry, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>;</li> - <li>on Orphicism, 95 <a href='#f195'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 195</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Solon, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>;</li> - <li>on Lydian influence, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>;</li> - <li>on Thales, <a href='#Page_38'>38</a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_40'>40</a>, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a> sq., <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>;</li> - <li>on Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a>, 94 <a href='#f191'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 191</ins></a>, 95 <a href='#f195'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 195</ins></a>, <a href='#f196'>2</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Hesiod, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Hieron, <a href='#Page_125'>125</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Hippasos, 103 <a href='#f217'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 217</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_341'>341</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Hippokrates, 235 <a href='#f528'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 528</ins></a>, 405 <a href='#f987'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 987</ins></a>, 411 <a href='#f1008'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 1008</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>Περὶ ἀέρων ὑδάτων τόπων, 79 <a href='#f154'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 154</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>[Hippokrates] Περὶ διαίτης, 167 <a href='#f383'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 383</ins></a>, 183 <a href='#f413'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 413</ins></a>, 305 <a href='#f695'><ins class='correction' title='n. 6'><i>n.</i> 695</ins></a>, 307 <a href='#f699'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 699</ins></a>, 405 <a href='#f986'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 986</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Hippokrates, lunules of, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Hippolytos, App. <a href='#app1.13'>§ 13</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Hippon of Samos, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, 58 <a href='#f109'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 109</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Hippys of Rhegion, 121 <a href='#f260'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 260</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Homer, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Hylozoism, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Hypotenuse, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Iamblichos, <cite>V. Pyth.</cite>, 92 <a href='#f186'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 186</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Ibykos, 220 <a href='#f482'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 482</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Idaios of Himera, 58 <a href='#f109'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 109</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_407'>407</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Ideas, theory of, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Immortality, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_172'>172</a> sq., <a href='#Page_225'>225</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Incommensurability, <a href='#Page_116'>116</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Indian philosophy, <a href='#Page_21'>21</a>. - <ul> - <li><i>See</i> <a href='#TRANSMIGRATION'>Transmigration</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Infinity, Anaximander, <a href='#Page_59'>59</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Parmenides, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li> - <li>Melissos, <a href='#Page_375'>375</a>.</li> - <li><i>See</i> <a href='#DIVISIBILITY'>Divisibility</a>, <a href='#APEIRON'>ἄπειρον</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Injustice, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a>, <a href='#Page_160'>160</a>, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Ionic dialect, <a href='#Page_327'>327</a> sq., <a href='#Page_408'>408</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Justice, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, 161 <a href='#f374'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 374</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Kebes and Simmias, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Kebes, Πίναξ, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Kratinos, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Kratylos, <a href='#Page_417'>417</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Kritias, 288 <a href='#f645'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 645</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'><span class='pageno' id='Page_433'>433</span>Kroton, 95 <a href='#f198'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 198</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Kylon, 97 <a href='#f204'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 204</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_98'>98</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Lampsakos, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a>, <a href='#Page_415'>415</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='LEUKIPPOS'></a>Leukippos, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>and the Eleatics, <a href='#Page_382'>382</a>, <a href='#Page_384'>384</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>and Empedokles, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a>, <a href='#Page_392'>392</a>;</li> - <li>and Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a> sq., <a href='#Page_392'>392</a>;</li> - <li>and the Pythagoreans, <a href='#Page_387'>387</a>, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a>, <a href='#Page_392'>392</a>;</li> - <li>and Demokritos, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a> sqq., 401 <a href='#f979'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 979</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Light, Empedokles, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>. - <ul> - <li><i>See</i> <a href='#MOON'>Moon</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Lightning and Thunder, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a>, 401 <a href='#f979'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 979</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Limit, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Lives, the three, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a>, 109 <a href='#f229'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 229</ins></a>, 154 <a href='#f362'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 362</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Love. <i>See</i> <a href='#EROS'>Eros, Love and Strife</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Lucretius, on Empedokles, <a href='#Page_237'>237</a>; - <ul> - <li>on Anaxagoras, 306 <a href='#f696'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 696</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Lydia, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Lysis, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>, <a href='#Page_326'>326</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Man, Anaximander, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a>; - <ul> - <li>Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a> sqq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Maoris, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Map, Anaximander’s, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Materialism, <a href='#Page_208'>208</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Matter. <i>See</i> <a href='#HYLE'>ὕλη</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Measures, <a href='#Page_167'>167</a> sq., <a href='#Page_181'>181</a>, <a href='#Page_410'>410</a>, <a href='#Page_413'>413</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Medicine, history of, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_226'>226</a>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_265'>265</a> sq., 288 <a href='#f645'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 645</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_322'>322</a>, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a>, <a href='#Page_405'>405</a>, <a href='#Page_411'>411</a>, <a href='#Page_414'>414</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Megarians, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='MELISSOS'></a>Melissos, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'><i>Melissos, Xenophanes and Gorgias</i>, <a href='#Page_138'>138</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Menon, Ἰατρικά, 49 <a href='#f85'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 85</ins></a>, 235 <a href='#f527'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 527</ins></a>, 322 <a href='#f742'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 742</ins></a>, 327 <a href='#f763'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 763</ins></a>, 340 <a href='#f799'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 799</ins></a>, 406 <a href='#f988'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 988</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Metapontion, 95 <a href='#f199'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 199</ins></a>, 97 <a href='#f205'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 205</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Metempsychosis. <i>See</i> <a href='#TRANSMIGRATION'>Transmigration</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Meteorological interest, <a href='#Page_49'>49</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Miletos, <a href='#Page_37'>37</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_76'>76</a>, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a>, <a href='#Page_382'>382</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Milky Way, <a href='#Page_69'>69</a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Milo, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Mochos of Sidon, 19 <a href='#f27'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 27</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Monism, <a href='#Page_206'>206</a>, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='MONOTHEISM'></a>Monotheism, <a href='#Page_141'>141</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'><a id='MOON'></a>Moon, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>; - <ul> - <li>light of, 202 <a href='#f446'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 446</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_275'>275</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_299'>299</a>, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'><a id='MOTION'></a>Motion, eternal, <a href='#Page_15'>15</a>, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>; - <ul> - <li>denied by Parmenides, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li> - <li>explained by Empedokles, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a>;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>;</li> - <li>criticised by Zeno, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a>;</li> - <li>denied by Melissos, <a href='#Page_376'>376</a>;</li> - <li>reaffirmed by Leukippos, <a href='#Page_392'>392</a> sq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Mysteries, <a href='#Page_90'>90</a>, <a href='#Page_190'>190</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><span class='pageno' id='Page_434'>434</span>Necessity. <i>See</i> <a href='#ANANKE'>Ἀνάγκη</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Nikomachos, <a href='#Page_92'>92</a>, 112 <a href='#f234'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 234</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Nile, <a href='#Page_43'>43</a> sq., <a href='#Page_313'>313</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Noumenios, <a href='#Page_19'>19</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Nous, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Numbers, Pythagorean, <a href='#Page_331'>331</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>triangular, square, and oblong, <a href='#Page_114'>114</a></li> - </ul> - </li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><a id='OBLIQUITY'></a>Obliquity of the ecliptic (zodiac), <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_401'>401</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Observation, <a href='#Page_29'>29</a> sq., <a href='#Page_73'>73</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Octave, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='OPPOSITES'></a>Opposites, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_186'>186</a> sq., <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a>, <a href='#Page_305'>305</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Oriental influences, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'><a id='ORPHICISM'></a>Orphicism, <a href='#Page_5'>5</a>, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_87'>87</a> sq., 95 <a href='#f195'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 195</ins></a>, 109 <a href='#f229'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 229</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a>, 257 <a href='#f571'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 571</ins></a>, 258 <a href='#f573'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 573</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><a id='PARMENIDES'></a>Parmenides, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>on Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_143'>143</a>, 198 <a href='#f438'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 438</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a> sq., <a href='#Page_210'>210</a>;</li> - <li>and Pythagoreanism, <a href='#Page_210'>210</a> sqq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Pausanias, 234 <a href='#f523'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 523</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_238'>238</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Pentagram, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Perception, Parmenides, 202 <a href='#f447'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 447</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_222'>222</a>; - <ul> - <li>Alkmaion, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Leukippos, <a href='#Page_401'>401</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Diogenes of Apollonia, <a href='#Page_414'>414</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Perikles and Zeno, <a href='#Page_193'>193</a>; - <ul> - <li>and Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a> sq.;</li> - <li>and Melissos, <a href='#Page_369'>369</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Petron, <a href='#Page_65'>65</a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Pherekydes of Syros, <a href='#Page_9'>9</a>, <a href='#Page_87'>87</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Philistion, 234 <a href='#f523'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 523</ins></a>, 235 <a href='#f526'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 526</ins></a> and <a href='#f527'><ins class='correction' title='2'>527</ins></a>, 266 <a href='#f587'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 587</ins></a>, 288 <a href='#f645'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 645</ins></a>, 356 <a href='#f850'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 850</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Philo of Byblos, 19 <a href='#f27'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 27</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Philo Judaeus, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_185'>185</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Philodemos, 50 <a href='#f89'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 89</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_64'>64</a>, 221 <a href='#f483'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 483</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Philolaos, 319, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'><a id='PHILOSOPHY'></a>Philosophy as κάθαρσις, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a>; - <ul> - <li>Pythagorean use of the word, <a href='#Page_89'>89</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, 321 <a href='#f739'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 739</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> - <li>synonymous with asceticism, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Phleious, 89 <a href='#f178'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 178</ins></a>, 94 <a href='#f191'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 191</ins></a>, 109 <a href='#f229'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 229</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Phoenician influence, <a href='#Page_18'>18</a>, 19 <a href='#f27'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 27</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Physiology, Parmenides, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>Alkmaion, <a href='#Page_223'>223</a>;</li> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_282'>282</a>;</li> - <li>Diogenes of Apollonia, <a href='#Page_411'>411</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Pindar, 232</li> - <li class='c027'>Planets, names of, 26 <a href='#f40'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 40</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>; - <ul> - <li>distinguished from fixed stars, <a href='#Page_26'>26</a>, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a>, <a href='#Page_276'>276</a>, <a href='#Page_392'>392</a>, <a href='#Page_401'>401</a>;</li> - <li>motion of, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a> sq., <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_350'>350</a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a>;</li> - <li>system of, <a href='#Page_344'>344</a> sq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'><a id='PLANTS'></a>Plants, Empedokles, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_315'>315</a> sq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Plato, App. <a href='#app1.1'>§ 1</a>; - <ul> - <li>on Egyptians and Phoenicians, <a href='#Page_17'>17</a>, <a href='#Page_20'>20</a>, 27 <a href='#f41'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 41</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Egyptian arithmetic, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a>;</li> - <li><span class='pageno' id='Page_435'>435</span>on schools of philosophy, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>;</li> - <li>on Pythagoras, 96 <a href='#f202'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 202</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>;</li> - <li>on Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_162'>162</a>, <a href='#Page_176'>176</a>, <a href='#Page_178'>178</a>;</li> - <li>on Herakleiteans, 161 <a href='#f373'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 373</ins></a>, 188 <a href='#f418'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 418</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Parmenides, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>;</li> - <li>on Empedokles, <a href='#Page_159'>159</a>, <a href='#Page_178'>178</a>, 269 <a href='#f593'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 593</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Anaxagoras, 291 <a href='#f655'><ins class='correction' title='n. 6'><i>n.</i> 655</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>, <a href='#Page_297'>297</a> sq., <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>;</li> - <li>on Philolaos, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a>;</li> - <li>on Pythagoreans, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>;</li> - <li>on incommensurables, 117 <a href='#f245'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 245</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Zeno, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a>, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a>, <a href='#Page_361'>361</a>;</li> - <li>on Melissos, 379 <a href='#f919'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 919</ins></a>;</li> - <li><cite>Phaedo</cite>, 89 <a href='#f178'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 178</ins></a>, 91 <a href='#f183'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 183</ins></a>, 108 <a href='#f228'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 228</ins></a>, 109 <a href='#f229'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 229</ins></a>, 172 <a href='#f391'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 391</ins></a>,182 <a href='#f411'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 411</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a> sq., <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>, <a href='#Page_345'>345</a>, <a href='#Page_354'>354</a>;</li> - <li><cite>Cratylus</cite>, 417 <a href='#f1027'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 1027</ins></a>;</li> - <li><cite>Theaetetus</cite>, 117 <a href='#f245'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 245</ins></a>, 263 <a href='#f580'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 580</ins></a>, 338 <a href='#f794'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 794</ins></a>, 417 <a href='#f1027'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 1027</ins></a>;</li> - <li><cite>Sophist</cite>, 356 <a href='#f849'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 849</ins></a>, 358 <a href='#f853'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 853</ins></a>;</li> - <li><cite>Politicus</cite>, 280 <a href='#f621'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 621</ins></a>;</li> - <li><cite>Parmenides</cite>, 358 <a href='#f852'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 852</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a> sq.;</li> - <li><cite>Philebus</cite>, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a>;</li> - <li><cite>Symposium</cite>, <a href='#Page_221'>221</a>, 281 <a href='#f625'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 625</ins></a>;</li> - <li><cite>Phaedrus</cite>, <a href='#Page_295'>295</a>;</li> - <li><cite>Gorgias</cite>, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>;</li> - <li><cite>Meno</cite>, 234 <a href='#f524'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 524</ins></a>;</li> - <li><cite>Republic</cite>, 25 <a href='#f39'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 39</ins></a>, 90 <a href='#f181'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 181</ins></a>, 177 <a href='#f400'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 400</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a>, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a> sq., <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>;</li> - <li><cite>Timaeus</cite>, 61 <a href='#f115'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 115</ins></a>, 79 <a href='#f154'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 154</ins></a>, 113 <a href='#f237'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 237</ins></a>, 118 <a href='#f248'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 248</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a>, <a href='#Page_340'>340</a>, <a href='#Page_342'>342</a>, 345 <a href='#f818'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 818</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a>, <a href='#Page_352'>352</a>, <a href='#Page_396'>396</a>;</li> - <li><cite>Laws</cite>, 107 <a href='#f227'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 227</ins></a>, 117 <a href='#f246'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 246</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Pleasure and pain, Empedokles, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>; - <ul> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_317'>317</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Pliny, <a href='#Page_42'>42</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Pluralism, <a href='#Page_227'>227</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_357'>357</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Political activity of philosophers, Thales, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>; - <ul> - <li>Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Parmenides, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>;</li> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Zeno, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Polybios, 99 <a href='#f206'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 206</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Polybos, <a href='#Page_379'>379</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Polykrates, era of, 53 <a href='#f97'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 97</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_94'>94</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Pores. <i>See</i> <a href='#POROI'>πόροι</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Porphyry, 92 <a href='#f187'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 187</ins></a>, 104 <a href='#f219'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 219</ins></a>, 257 <a href='#f571'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 571</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Poseidonios, 19 <a href='#f27'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 27</ins></a>, 81 <a href='#f159'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 159</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Precession. <i>See</i> <a href='#EQUINOXES'>Equinoxes</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Proclus, commentary on Euclid, <a href='#Page_44'>44</a>, 115 <a href='#f243'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 243</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Proportion, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Protagoras, <a href='#Page_188'>188</a>, <a href='#Page_360'>360</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Purification. <i>See</i> <a href='#KATHARMOS'>καθαρμός, κάθαρσις</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Pyramids, measurement of, <a href='#Page_45'>45</a>. - <ul> - <li><i>See</i> <a href='#PYRAMIS'>πυραμίς</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>forged writings, <a href='#Page_325'>325</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Pythagoreans, <a href='#Page_212'>212</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_319'>319</a> sqq.</li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><a id='RAREFACTION'></a>Rarefaction and condensation, <a href='#Page_77'>77</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_163'>163</a>, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_403'>403</a>, <a href='#Page_412'>412</a></li> - <li class='c027'><span class='pageno' id='Page_436'>436</span>Religion, <a href='#Page_85'>85</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_189'>189</a>, <a href='#Page_294'>294</a>. - <ul> - <li><i>See</i> <a href='#ORPHICISM'>Orphicism</a>, <a href='#MONOTHEISM'>Monotheism</a>, <a href='#GODS'>Gods</a>, <a href='#SACRIFICE'>Sacrifice</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'><a id='RESPIRATION'></a>Respiration, <a href='#Page_235'>235</a>, 253 <a href='#f565'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 565</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Rest. <i>See</i> <a href='#MOTION'>Motion</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Revolution, diurnal, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a>, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>, <a href='#Page_346'>346</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Rhegion, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, 220 <a href='#f482'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 482</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Rhetoric, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_234'>234</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Rhind papyrus, <a href='#Page_22'>22</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'><a id='ROOTS'></a>Roots, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><a id='SACRIFICE'></a>Sacrifice, mystic, 104 <a href='#f220'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 220</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>bloodless, 258 <a href='#f576'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 576</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Salmoxis, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Sanchuniathon, 19 <a href='#f27'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 27</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Sardeis, era of, 43 <a href='#f67'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 67</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_53'>53</a>, <a href='#Page_75'>75</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Schools, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_293'>293</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Sea, Anaximander, <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>, <a href='#Page_70'>70</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_277'>277</a>;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a>;</li> - <li>Diogenes of Apollonia, <a href='#Page_413'>413</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'><a id='SEEDS'></a>Seeds, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Seqt, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Seven Wise Men, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a>, <a href='#Page_46'>46</a>, <a href='#Page_51'>51</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Sight, Alkmaion, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>; - <ul> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>, <a href='#Page_287'>287</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Silloi, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Sleep, Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_169'>169</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_283'>283</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Smell, Empedokles, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>; - <ul> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Sokrates, Parmenides and Zeno, <a href='#Page_192'>192</a> sq., <a href='#Page_358'>358</a>; - <ul> - <li>and Archelaos, <a href='#Page_415'>415</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Solids, regular, <a href='#Page_328'>328</a> sq., <a href='#Page_340'>340</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Solon. <i>See</i> <a href='#CROESUS'>Croesus</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='SOUL'></a>Soul, <a href='#Page_86'>86</a>, <a href='#Page_91'>91</a>, <a href='#Page_168'>168</a>, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a>, <a href='#Page_343'>343</a>, <a href='#Page_414'>414</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Space, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>, <a href='#Page_366'>366</a>, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Speusippos, 113 <a href='#f236'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 236</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>on Parmenides, <a href='#Page_195'>195</a>;</li> - <li>on Pythagorean numbers, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a>, 336 <a href='#f790'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 790</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Sphere, Parmenides, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_262'>262</a>.</li> - <li><i>See</i> <a href='#EARTH'>Earth</a>, <a href='#EUDOXOS'>Eudoxos</a>, <a href='#HARMONY'>Harmony</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Stars, fixed, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Stoics, App. <a href='#app1.3'>§ 3</a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>, <a href='#Page_179'>179</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Strabo, 19 <a href='#f27'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 27</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_194'>194</a>, 195 <a href='#f430'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 430</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Strife, Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a>; - <ul> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_266'>266</a> sqq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Sun, Anaximander, <a href='#Page_68'>68</a>; - <ul> - <li>Anaximenes, <a href='#Page_80'>80</a>;</li> - <li>Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_134'>134</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a> sq., <a href='#Page_174'>174</a>;</li> - <li>Empedokles, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a> sq., <a href='#Page_347'>347</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_314'>314</a></li> - </ul> - </li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Taras, 97 <a href='#f204'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 204</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_319'>319</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Taste, Empedokles, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>; - <ul> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Tetraktys, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Thales, <a href='#Page_39'>39</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Theaitetos, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a>, <a href='#Page_329'>329</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Theano, <a href='#Page_353'>353</a></li> - <li class='c027'><span class='pageno' id='Page_437'>437</span>Thebes, Lysis at, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a>, <a href='#Page_320'>320</a>; - <ul> - <li>Philolaos at, <a href='#Page_99'>99</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Theodoros of Kyrene, <a href='#Page_117'>117</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Theogony, Hesiodic, <a href='#Page_6'>6</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>Rhapsodic, 9 <a href='#f10'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 10</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Theologians, <a href='#Page_10'>10</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Theology. <i>See</i> <a href='#GODS'>Gods</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Theon of Smyrna, 27 <a href='#f41'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 41</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Theophrastos, App. <a href='#app1.7'>§ 7</a>; - <ul> - <li>on schools, <a href='#Page_33'>33</a>, <a href='#Page_35'>35</a>, <a href='#Page_52'>52</a>;</li> - <li>on Prometheus, 39 <a href='#f55'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 55</ins></a>;</li> - <li>on Thales, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a>;</li> - <li>Anaximander, <a href='#Page_54'>54</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_66'>66</a>;</li> - <li>on Anaximenes, <a href='#Page_76'>76</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>on Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_126'>126</a>, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>, <a href='#Page_137'>137</a>;</li> - <li>on Herakleitos, <a href='#Page_145'>145</a>, <a href='#Page_156'>156</a>, <a href='#Page_163'>163</a> sqq.;</li> - <li>on Parmenides, <a href='#Page_209'>209</a>, <a href='#Page_213'>213</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_218'>218</a>, <a href='#Page_220'>220</a>;</li> - <li>on Empedokles, 229 <a href='#f504'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 504</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_267'>267</a> sq., <a href='#Page_272'>272</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_278'>278</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a>;</li> - <li>on Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a>, <a href='#Page_292'>292</a>, 293 <a href='#f660'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 660</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_313'>313</a> sq., <a href='#Page_316'>316</a> sq.;</li> - <li>on Leukippos, <a href='#Page_380'>380</a> sq., <a href='#Page_382'>382</a>, <a href='#Page_384'>384</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_390'>390</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_402'>402</a>;</li> - <li>on Diogenes of Apollonia, <a href='#Page_381'>381</a>, <a href='#Page_407'>407</a> sq., <a href='#Page_412'>412</a>;</li> - <li>on Hippon of Samos, <a href='#Page_406'>406</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Theoretic life, <a href='#Page_291'>291</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Theron of Akragas, <a href='#Page_229'>229</a>, <a href='#Page_232'>232</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Thourioi, era of, <a href='#Page_228'>228</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Timaios Lokros, <a href='#Page_323'>323</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Timaios of Tauromenion, 228 <a href='#f508'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 508</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_230'>230</a>, <a href='#Page_233'>233</a>, 237 <a href='#f534'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 534</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>Timon of Phleious, <a href='#Page_129'>129</a>, <a href='#Page_324'>324</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Touch, Empedokles, <a href='#Page_285'>285</a>; - <ul> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_316'>316</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'><a id='TRANSMIGRATION'></a>Transmigration, <a href='#Page_95'>95</a>, <a href='#Page_101'>101</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_124'>124</a>, <a href='#Page_289'>289</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Triangle, Pythagorean, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a>, <a href='#Page_115'>115</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Unit, <a href='#Page_337'>337</a>, <a href='#Page_365'>365</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Void, Pythagorean, <a href='#Page_120'>120</a>, <a href='#Page_214'>214</a>, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>, <a href='#Page_336'>336</a>, <a href='#Page_383'>383</a>; - <ul> - <li>Parmenides, <a href='#Page_204'>204</a>, <a href='#Page_207'>207</a>;</li> - <li>Alkmaion, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>;</li> - <li>Atomist, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a> sq.</li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'><a id='VORTEX'></a>Vortex, Empedokles, <a href='#Page_274'>274</a>; - <ul> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_311'>311</a>;</li> - <li>Leukippos, <a href='#Page_399'>399</a> sqq.</li> - </ul> - </li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Water, <a href='#Page_48'>48</a> sqq., <a href='#Page_407'>407</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Weight, <a href='#Page_394'>394</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>Wheels, Anaximander, <a href='#Page_67'>67</a> sq.; - <ul> - <li>Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>;</li> - <li>Parmenides, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>Worlds, innumerable, Anaximander, <a href='#Page_62'>62</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>Anaximenes, <a href='#Page_82'>82</a> sq.;</li> - <li>Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_121'>121</a>;</li> - <li>Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_136'>136</a>;</li> - <li>Anaxagoras, <a href='#Page_312'>312</a>;</li> - <li>Diogenes of Apollonia, <a href='#Page_414'>414</a>;</li> - <li>Archelaos, <a href='#Page_417'>417</a></li> - </ul> - </li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Xenophanes, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>on Thales, <a href='#Page_41'>41</a>;</li> - <li>on Pythagoras, <a href='#Page_124'>124</a></li> - </ul> - </li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Year. <i>See</i> <a href='#GREATYEAR'>Great Year</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>Zamolxis, <a href='#Page_93'>93</a></li> - <li class='c027'>Zankle, 127 <a href='#f275'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 275</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='ZENO'></a>Zeno, <a href='#Page_358'>358</a> sqq.; - <ul> - <li>on Empedokles, <a href='#Page_359'>359</a>;</li> - <li>on Pythagoreans, <a href='#Page_362'>362</a></li> - </ul> - </li> -</ul> - -<div> - <span class='pageno' id='Page_438'>438</span> - <h3 class='c018'>II. GREEK</h3> -</div> - -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>ἀδικία, <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, <a href='#Page_60'>60</a>, <a href='#Page_71'>71</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='AER'></a>ἀήρ, 79 <a href='#f154'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 154</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, 264 <a href='#f583'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 583</ins></a>, 284 <a href='#f634'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 634</ins></a>. - <ul> - <li><i>See</i> <a href='#AIR'>Air</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'><a id='AITHER'></a>αἰθήρ, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, 264 <a href='#f583'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 583</ins></a>, 312 <a href='#f709'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 709</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἀκούσματα, <a href='#Page_105'>105</a> sq., <a href='#Page_328'>328</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἀκουσματικοί, <a href='#Page_96'>96</a>, <a href='#Page_103'>103</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='ANANKE'></a>Ἀνάγκη, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a>, 256 <a href='#f569'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 569</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἀναθυμίασις, 167 <a href='#f382'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 382</ins></a>, 168 <a href='#f385'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 385</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἀντέρεισις, <a href='#Page_400'>400</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἄντυξ, <a href='#Page_216'>216</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='APEIRON'></a>ἄπειρον, 57 <a href='#f105'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 105</ins></a>, 60 <a href='#f113'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 113</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἄπνους, ἡ, 233 <a href='#f520'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 520</ins></a>, 236 <a href='#f533'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 533</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='APORROAI'></a>ἀπορροαί, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, 287 <a href='#f642'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 642</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἀποτομή, 391 <a href='#f949'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 949</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἀριθμητική dist. λογιστική, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a>, 111 <a href='#f233'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 233</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='HARMONIA'></a>ἁρμονία, <a href='#Page_122'>122</a>, <a href='#Page_158'>158</a>, <a href='#Page_184'>184</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἁρπεδονάπται, <a href='#Page_24'>24</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἀρχή, <a href='#Page_13'>13</a>, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a></li> - <li class='c027'>αὐτὸ ὃ ἔστιν, 355 <a href='#f847'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 847</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>γαλεοί, <a href='#Page_73'>73</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>γόητες, <a href='#Page_106'>106</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>δαίμων, 155 <a href='#f364'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 364</ins></a>, 172 <a href='#f391'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 391</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>διαστήματα, 65 <a href='#f126'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 126</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>δίκη, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, 161 <a href='#f374'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 374</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>δίνη. <i>See</i> <a href='#VORTEX'>Vortex</a></li> - <li class='c027'>διορίζω, 120 <a href='#f254'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 254</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><a id='EIDOS'></a>εἶδος, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, 388 <a href='#f943'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 943</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>εἴδωλα, <a href='#Page_403'>403</a></li> - <li class='c027'>εἶναι, 198 <a href='#f435'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 435</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>τὸ ἐόν, 204 <a href='#f450'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 450</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>ἔκθλιψις, 397 <a href='#f962'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 962</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἔκκρισις, <a href='#Page_61'>61</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='EKPYROSIS'></a>ἐκπύρωσις, <a href='#Page_178'>178</a> sqq.</li> - <li class='c027'>ἕν, τὸ, <a href='#Page_140'>140</a>, 363 <a href='#f880'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 880</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_377'>377</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἐναντία. <i>See</i> <a href='#OPPOSITES'>Opposites</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἑνίζειν, 139 <a href='#f306'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 306</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἐπίψαυσις, <a href='#Page_400'>400</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἐστώ, 330 <a href='#f770'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 770</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><span class='pageno' id='Page_439'>439</span>θεός, <a href='#Page_74'>74</a>. - <ul> - <li><i>See</i> <a href='#GODS'>Gods</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>θεωρία, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, <a href='#Page_108'>108</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><a id='IDEA'></a>ἰδέα, 235 <a href='#f527'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 527</ins></a>, 263 <a href='#f580'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 580</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_355'>355</a>, 356 <a href='#f850'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 850</ins></a>, 388 <a href='#f943'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 943</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἶδος, 243 <a href='#f549'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 549</ins></a>, 249 <a href='#f558'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 558</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἰσονομία, <a href='#Page_225'>225</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἰσορροπία, <a href='#Page_398'>398</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ἱστορία, 14 <a href='#f18'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 18</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>, 107 <a href='#f244'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 244</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><a id='KATHARMOS'></a>καθαρμός, κάθαρσις, <a href='#Page_88'>88</a>, <a href='#Page_107'>107</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>κεγχρίτης λόγος, <a href='#f862'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 862</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>κλεψύδρα, 253 <a href='#f565'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 565</ins></a>, 254 <a href='#f566'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 566</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_263'>263</a>, <a href='#Page_309'>309</a>, <a href='#Page_384'>384</a></li> - <li class='c027'>κληροῦχος, <a href='#Page_219'>219</a></li> - <li class='c027'>κόσμος, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a>, 148 <a href='#f336'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 336</ins></a>, 182 <a href='#f412'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 412</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>κρατέω, <a href='#Page_310'>310</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>λογιστική dist. ἀριθμητική, <a href='#Page_23'>23</a></li> - <li class='c027'>λόγος, 146 <a href='#f332'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 332</ins></a>, 148 <a href='#f339'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 339</ins></a>, 152 <a href='#f355'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 355</ins></a>, 153 <a href='#f358'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 358</ins></a> and <a href='#f359'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 359</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_157'>157</a>; - <ul> - <li>λόγος τοῦ εἶναι, 355 <a href='#f847'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 847</ins></a></li> - </ul> - </li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>μεσότης, <a href='#Page_118'>118</a></li> - <li class='c027'>μετάρσια, 296 <a href='#f670'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 670</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>μετεμψύχωσις, 101 <a href='#f212'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 212</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>μετενσωμάτωσις, 101 <a href='#f212'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 212</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>μετέωρα, <a href='#Page_32'>32</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='MORFE'></a>μορφή, 263 <a href='#f580'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 580</ins></a>, 356 <a href='#f850'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 850</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>ὄγκοι, 338 <a href='#f794'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 794</ins></a>, 368 <a href='#f894'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 894</ins></a>, 387 <a href='#f939'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 939</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ὁλκάς, 341 <a href='#f805'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 805</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ὁμοιομερῆ, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a></li> - <li class='c027'>ὅμοιος, ὁμοιότης, 72 <a href='#f138'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 138</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ὄργια, 88 <a href='#f175'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 175</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ὅρος, 115 <a href='#f240'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 240</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>οὐρανός, <a href='#Page_31'>31</a>, 140 <a href='#f310'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 310</ins></a>; - <ul> - <li>Aristotle’s πρῶτος οὐρανός, <a href='#Page_177'>177</a></li> - </ul> - </li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><span class='pageno' id='Page_440'>440</span>πάγος, 273 <a href='#f603'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 603</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>παλιγγενεσία, 101 <a href='#f212'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 212</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>παλίντονος, 150 <a href='#f184'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 184</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='corr433.5'></a><span class='htmlonly'><ins class='correction' title='παλίντροπὸς'>παλίντροπος</ins></span><span class='epubonly'><a href='#c_433.5'><ins class='correction' title='παλίντροπὸς'>παλίντροπος</ins></a></span>, 150 <a href='#f347'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 347</ins></a>, 198 <a href='#f438'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 438</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>πανσπερμία, <a href='#Page_307'>307</a>, <a href='#Page_389'>389</a></li> - <li class='c027'>περιαγωγή, 63 <a href='#f119'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 119</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>περιέχω, 60 <a href='#f114'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 114</ins></a>, 170 <a href='#f389'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 389</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>περίστασις, 63 <a href='#f119'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 119</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>πίλησις, 77 <a href='#f151'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 151</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='POROI'></a>πόροι, <a href='#Page_224'>224</a>, 226 <a href='#f500'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 500</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_236'>236</a>, <a href='#Page_269'>269</a>, <a href='#Page_284'>284</a> sq., <a href='#Page_383'>383</a></li> - <li class='c027'>πρηστήρ, 69 <a href='#f133'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 133</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_165'>165</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='PYRAMIS'></a>πυραμίς, 25 <a href='#f38'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 38</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>ῥαψῳδῶ, 127 <a href='#f276'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 276</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ῥοπή, <a href='#Page_398'>398</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>σῆμα σῶμα, <a href='#Page_321'>321</a></li> - <li class='c027'>στασιῶται, 140 <a href='#f307'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 307</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>στέφαναι, <a href='#Page_215'>215</a></li> - <li class='c027'><a id='STOICHEIA'></a>στοιχεῖον, 54 <a href='#f101'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 101</ins></a>, 56 <a href='#f103'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 103</ins></a>, 263 <a href='#f586'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 586</ins></a>, 265 <a href='#f586'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 586</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_306'>306</a>, <a href='#Page_333'>333</a>, 388 <a href='#f942'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 942</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>συνοικειῶ, 157 <a href='#f370'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 370</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>τετρακτύς, <a href='#Page_113'>113</a> sq.</li> - <li class='c027'>τροπαί, 67 <a href='#f129'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 129</ins></a>, <a href='#Page_174'>174</a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'><a id='HYLE'></a>ὕλη, <a href='#Page_57'>57</a>, 330 <a href='#f770'><ins class='correction' title='n. 3'><i>n.</i> 770</ins></a>, 342 <a href='#f807'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 807</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ὑπόθεσις, 33 <a href='#f46'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 46</ins></a>, 360 <a href='#f866'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 866</ins></a>, 361 <a href='#f871'><ins class='correction' title='n. 4'><i>n.</i> 871</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>ὑποτείνουσα, 116 <a href='#f242'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 242</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>φαινόμενα, σῴζειν τὰ, 33 <a href='#f46'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 46</ins></a></li> - <li class='c027'>φιλοσοφία, φιλόσοφος, φιλοσοφῶ, <a href='#Page_28'>28</a>. - <ul> - <li><i>See</i> <a href='#PHILOSOPHY'>Philosophy</a></li> - </ul> - </li> - <li class='c027'>φύσις, <a href='#Page_12'>12</a> sq., <a href='#Page_56'>56</a>, 388 <a href='#f941'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 941</ins></a> and <a href='#f944'><ins class='correction' title='n. 5'><i>n.</i> 944</ins></a></li> -</ul> -<ul class='index c001'> - <li class='c027'>χώρα, 114 <a href='#f238'><ins class='correction' title='n. 1'><i>n.</i> 238</ins></a>, 115 <a href='#f240'><ins class='correction' title='n. 2'><i>n.</i> 240</ins></a></li> -</ul> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div><i>Printed by</i> <span class='sc'>R. & R. Clark, Limited</span>, <i>Edinburgh</i>.</div> - </div> -</div> - -<div class='pbb'> - <hr class='pb c001' /> -</div> -<p class='c002'><a id='endnote'></a></p> -<div class='tnotes'> - -<div class='nf-center-c0'> - <div class='nf-center'> - <div><span class='large'>Transcriber’s Note</span></div> - </div> -</div> - -<p class='c002'>When Burnet gives the fragments of a Greek philosopher, he does so -selectively, resulting in gaps in the sequence. Internal references -to those fragments in the text or footnotes have been linked for -easy navigation. References to the fragments in the footnotes are -sometimes technical discussions of the reading in Greek, and these -are not linked. There are also references to fragments which are not -among those the Burnet provides.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Some quoted and translated passages, printed as prose, also include -line numbers in the right margin. These now appear on the right hand edge, -at the place in the text where they originally appeared. The actual line -count, depending on your reader, may vary with page width. Therefore, -these numbers should be regarded as approximate.</p> - -<p class='c002'>In note <a href='#f813'>813</a>, the Greek phrase includes an unmatched closing bracket. -This is a direct quotation from p. 234 of <span lang="la" xml:lang="la"><cite>Scholia in Lucianum</cite></span>, edited by Hugo Rabe. -The bracket was used by Rabe to separate the topic (the pentagram) from its -gloss.</p> - -<p class='c002'>Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and -are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original.</p> - -<table class='table5' summary=''> -<colgroup> -<col width='12%' /> -<col width='69%' /> -<col width='18%' /> -</colgroup> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_75.13'></a><a href='#corr75.13'>75.13</a></td> - <td class='c008'>according to Theophra[s]tos</td> - <td class='c028'>Added.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_197.21'></a><a href='#corr197.21'>197.21</a></td> - <td class='c008'>Look stea[fd/df]astly with thy mind</td> - <td class='c028'>Transposed.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_212.26'></a><a href='#corr212.26'>212.26</a></td> - <td class='c008'>It seem[s] to me</td> - <td class='c028'>Added.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_213.18'></a><a href='#corr213.18'>213.18</a></td> - <td class='c008'>and Theoph[astros/rastos]certainly followed him</td> - <td class='c028'>Misplaced.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_249.21'></a><a href='#corr249.21'>249.21</a></td> - <td class='c008'>meadows of Aph[h]rodite</td> - <td class='c028'>Removed.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_292.34'></a><a href='#corr292.34'>292.34</a></td> - <td class='c008'>διήκουσε)[”]</td> - <td class='c028'>Added.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_331.19'></a><a href='#corr331.19'>331.19</a></td> - <td class='c008'>Aristotle on the Number[s].</td> - <td class='c028'>Added.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_332.32'></a><a href='#corr332.32'>332.32</a></td> - <td class='c008'>τὰ γοῦν θεωρήματα πρ[ό/ο]σάπτουσι</td> - <td class='c028'>Replaced.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_402'></a><a href='#corr402'>402</a></td> - <td class='c008'>οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι φύσει τὰ αἰσθητ[α/ά]</td> - <td class='c028'>Replaced.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_415.6'></a><a href='#corr415.6'>415.6</a></td> - <td class='c008'>Anaxagorea[ns]</td> - <td class='c028'>Presumed.</td> - </tr> - <tr> - <td class='c008'><a id='c_433.5'></a><a href='#corr433.5'>433.5</a></td> - <td class='c008'>παλίντροπ[ὸ/ο]ς</td> - <td class='c028'>Replaced.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK EARLY GREEK PHILOSOPHY ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin:0.83em 0; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<span style='font-size:smaller'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</span> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> - </body> - <!-- created with ppgen.py 3.57c on 2022-01-02 14:22:13 GMT --> -</html> |